Oral
Answers to
Questions

Health and Social Care

The Secretary of State was asked—

NHS Dentists: North Shropshire

Helen Morgan: What progress his Department has made on improving access to NHS dentists in North Shropshire constituency.

Steve Barclay: Last year, we announced a number of reforms to the NHS dental system, making the NHS more attractive and helping patients to access care. Treatments and dental care delivered in England went up by a fifth between 2021 and 2022.

Helen Morgan: In North Shropshire, the number of adults seen by a dentist between 2019 and 2022 fell by more than 10%, from 47.5% to 35.4%, and the number of children seen by a dentist in that time has fallen by just about 10%, from 59% to 49.8%. Constituents report not being able to access a dentist, and are being turned away from their NHS dentists as they seek to take on only private work. Can the Secretary of State reassure me that he is taking steps to ensure that dentists in rural areas will continue to provide NHS services, because this healthcare problem will continue into the future?

Steve Barclay: We recognise that we need to do more. That is why we are making NHS dentistry more attractive by creating more bands of units of dental activity, having a minimum UDA value, and increasing to 110% the amount of activity that dentists can do. Indeed, Shropshire, Telford and Wrekin NHS trust, for example, was above the national average in the 24 months until June 2022. We are putting reforms in place to build more capacity.

Elective Care Waiting Times

Ruth Cadbury: What steps his Department is taking to reduce waiting times for NHS treatments.

Gagan Mohindra: What recent progress he has made on reducing the number of patients waiting more than 18 months for elective care.

Steve Barclay: The elective recovery plan sets out clear steps to eliminate long waits, and that is supported by £8 billion of revenue funding and £5.9 billion in capital over three years.

Ruth Cadbury: The waiting list for elective care has risen to more than 7 million people, including one constituent who is unable to work while waiting months for an orthopaedic assessment, and another who has been waiting three years for a prostate operation. Both have had to seek emergency care while they wait for an agonisingly long time. Is it not true that the longer the Conservatives stay in power, the longer patients will wait?

Steve Barclay: On the last bit of the question, the average waits in Wales are 20.4 weeks as of April, and in England they are 13.8 weeks, which is the exact opposite of the point the hon. Lady raises. We are taking action. We are boosting diagnostic capacity; 111 community diagnostic centres are now open. We are increasing treatment capacity through our surgical hubs programme. We are giving patients choice, which is not available in Wales under the Labour Administration—we are giving them more choice. We are also making better use of the independent sector, which some on the Labour Front Bench support but others do not.

Gagan Mohindra: One of my constituents has now been waiting 14 months for a hysterectomy, while another waited years to receive a much-needed hip replacement. That is way over the 18-week standard set out by the NHS Constitution. Can the Secretary of State tell the House what is being done to get wait times down to that 18-week mark?

Steve Barclay: We recognise the challenges from the pandemic, and that is why we are boosting capacity, particularly through our community diagnostic centres. The additional capacity has already delivered more than 4 million extra tests and scans. We are rolling that programme out with the target of 160, and 111 are already in place.

Cancer Outcome Targets

John Baron: What steps he is taking to implement section 5 of the Health and Care Act 2022.

Helen Whately: In accordance with section 5 of the Health and Care Act 2022, the Secretary of State’s mandate to NHS England for this year set out ambitious objectives to improve outcomes for cancer patients, including the specific aims of improving one-year and five-year survival of all cancers.

John Baron: Many on the Conservative Benches are pleased that section 5 is finally being implemented, but we would urge the Government to ensure, when consulting on the NHS mandate, that the focus is on outcomes such as the one-year survival rate to encourage earlier diagnosis, and is not watered down in favour of softer objectives such as patient experience surveys, because patients may not be aware of how badly the NHS compares on international survival rates, as recent research from the King’s Fund has shown.

Helen Whately: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his commitment to ensuring that we are focused on cancer outcomes and on his successful campaign for that to be included in the NHS mandate, which it has been, as I just mentioned. The best way to improve outcomes for cancers is by catching cancer early. That is one reason why we have a range of metrics, including process metrics, which measure early diagnosis and therefore help us to achieve our ambitions on outcomes. Other metrics such as patient experience are important as well.

Derek Twigg: I agree with the hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron). One of the problems is the time it takes from the GP’s referral to the consultant at the hospital and the treatment then starting; there are still concerns about delays in that. What is the Minister doing to speed up the process from not just the GP’s referral to the consultant but from the consultant to treatment starting?

Helen Whately: The hon. Member is right that the duration is very important. One reason why we are focused so much on increasing early diagnosis is because we know that the sooner we diagnose people, the more likely they are to have a successful outcome from cancer treatment. We are seeing improvements in cancer survival. For instance, in 2010, two thirds of people would survive for one year after a cancer diagnosis; now the figure is three quarters. The NHS is working very hard on further improving cancer diagnosis, and we have reduced the number of people waiting more than 62 days since the pandemic by over a third.

Cervical Screening and Ovarian Cancer

Sharon Hodgson: What steps he is taking to increase awareness of (a) cervical screening and (b) ovarian cancer.

Helen Whately: We are catching more cancers early than ever before, and work to raise awareness of cancer signs and symptoms, screening programmes and investment in early diagnosis are all playing their part. We fund community events to raise awareness of ovarian cancer, and NHS England is working to increase cervical screening take-up by providing more convenient appointments, including at weekends and evenings.

Sharon Hodgson: I thank the Minister for that answer, but Target Ovarian Cancer has found that 40% of women in the UK wrongly believe that their smear test will detect ovarian cancer. There is currently no viable screening process for ovarian cancer. However, messaging remains unclear when women are going for their smear test. What steps are being taken to ensure that information provided at such screening is clear?

Helen Whately: On the one hand, cervical screening is incredibly important and very effective at saving lives from cervical cancer—we estimate that it saves around 5,000 lives per year. There is no evidence to support a screening programme for ovarian cancer, and I will take away the hon. Lady’s question about whether there should be communications about that when people go for a cervical smear.

Vaping: Young People

Alex Cunningham: What steps he is taking to tackle vaping by young people.

Steve Barclay: The hon. Gentleman raises a point of concern across the House that we recognise. That is why we have already taken action, through £3 million to crack down on those selling vapes illegally to children, closing the loophole that allowed free samples to be offered to children, and our call for evidence, so that we can examine what further measures we can take, particularly on the concerns about disposable vapes, which are prevalent among children.

Alex Cunningham: That is helpful, but Labour proposed a new clause to the Health and Care Bill that would have given the Government the primary powers needed to stop the use of sweet names such as gummy bears and Skittles, bright colours and cartoon characters on packaging and labelling of e-cigarettes. The Minister will agree that such promotion aimed directly at young people is highly unacceptable and takes us back to the worst days of cigarette advertising. If the Government are so committed to acting in this space, why did they vote down that new clause?

Steve Barclay: As I say, we have already taken action. We took measures in April, and the Prime Minister announced further measures in May. We are keen to follow the evidence. That is why we have had a call for evidence. The ministerial team are looking extremely closely at this, and we will take further action to clamp down on something that we all recognise is a risk to children, which is why we are acting on it.

Maggie Throup: Vapes are smoking-cessation products; they are not confectionery to be sold to children or a way of replacing one generation hooked on nicotine with another. Will my right hon. Friend update the House on the progress that the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency has made on licensing e-cigarettes and other inhaled nicotine-containing products as medicines, which would put out a strong message that vaping is a dangerous pastime?

Steve Barclay: As a former Health Minister, my hon. Friend is well aware of the risks posed by vaping. As the chief medical officer has said,
“If you smoke, vaping is much safer; if you don’t smoke, don’t vape”.
That is why we are toughening up the regime. We are also working with industry as part of our call for evidence, but we are clear on the need to go further. That is exactly what we will do.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the SNP spokesperson.

Martyn Day: Youngsters who try e-cigarettes are at much greater risk of both nicotine addiction and later going on to use tobacco itself, so what consideration have this Government given to banning disposable vapes completely as a way of protecting our young people?

Steve Barclay: Again, I agree that disposable vapes are a particular concern: in our view, the growth in youth vaping is largely due to the growth in the use of disposable vapes. That is why we have particularly focused on that issue in our call for evidence, and that is what we are considering.

City-centre GP Premises

Daisy Cooper: What assessment he has made of the potential impact of guidance issued by District Valuer Services on the availability of city-centre GP premises.

Neil O'Brien: While it is a very long-standing system, we keep the approach to funding for GP premises under review. We have taken action in the primary care recovery plan to improve access to section 106 funds, so that new homes always come with the GP infrastructure that is needed.

Daisy Cooper: The Secretary of State and his Ministers will know that I first raised this issue in the Chamber on 6 June this year. Integrated care boards, GPs, and now the medical property sector are all telling me that the Treasury rules are out of date and are a massive block to securing much-needed primary care premises in the right places, particularly in city centres such as St Albans. When I have asked the Department via written parliamentary questions for its assessment of how much of a problem this issue is, the Department has told me that it just does not know. Could the Minister please tell us when he will be speaking to colleagues in the Treasury to resolve this issue, so that we can make sure that GP premises are secured where people need them most?

Neil O'Brien: We talk all the time. I am conscious that there are 60% more full-time patient-facing staff in the hon. Lady’s constituency than there were in 2019, which of course puts pressure on premises. The capital allocation for her local ICB between 2022-23 and 2024-25 was £200 million, so the money is there, but I am happy to continue the conversation about how we get the premises in the places where we need them.

Pharmacy Services

Chris Green: What recent progress he has made on increasing the range of services in pharmacies.

Neil O'Brien: We have already been growing the range of NHS services available in pharmacies: we have set up the community pharmacist consultation service, the discharge medicines service, the new medicine service, the blood pressure check service, smoking-cessation services and the contraception service. We are now investing £645 million to go further through the new Pharmacy First scheme for common conditions.

Chris Green: I thank my hon. Friend for his answer, but does he agree that the services offered by pharmacies can be made more efficient? For example, 62 million prescription items are subject to “split and snip” per year. That is where, to get the right number of pills, a  pack has to be manually opened up for a couple of pills to be snipped out, then repackaged and relabelled before being reissued. The spare pills are often thrown away. Can that system not be better?

Neil O'Brien: My hon. Friend is completely correct. That is why at the end of last month we laid a statutory instrument before the House to fix the system, so that pharmacists can spend more time using their skills to provide high-end clinical services and less time snipping blister packs.

John Cryer: Given the national shortage of GPs, does the Minister recognise that there is a potential danger in asking pharmacists to take on the duties of GPs—duties that they are not necessarily qualified to undertake—especially given the already large workload undertaken by pharmacists?

Neil O'Brien: We absolutely recognise the need for patient safety, which is why there will be clear patient group directions and clear pathways about what pharmacists do. They are not taking on the role of GPs, but are providing additional services that will make things more convenient for all of our constituents.

Maria Miller: I warmly welcome the Government’s commitment to investing £645 million to enable pharmacists to provide for far more common conditions. I have already visited one of my own local surgeries, the Shakespeare Road medical practice, and seen at first hand how pharmacists are already working in GP surgeries to try to reduce waiting times. Surely, more surgeries should be doing the same, involving pharmacists with enhanced roles in order to cut waiting times in a manner that is safe.

Neil O'Brien: My right hon. Friend is completely correct. That £645 million, of course, comes on top of the £100 million that we have already put in. We have grown the pharmacy workforce hugely—there are 82% more pharmacists now than in 2010—and we are also enabling those people with their high-end skills to do more by reforming regulations. That is not just the blister packs issue; we are enabling them to do convenient things such as hand out bagged medicines even if the pharmacist is not present.

Gregory Campbell: Will the Minister undertake to liaise closely with local community pharmacy representative groups to ensure that the excellent work they have been doing can be maximised, particularly given that the NHS is under severe pressure at the moment?

Neil O'Brien: Absolutely, and I always try to learn lessons from right across the UK. In fact, some of the ideas for reforms have come from listening to local partners. For example, our reforms to enable modern ways of working, hub-and-spoke dispensing and empowering pharmacy technicians have come from talking to those local partners.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the shadow Minister.

Karin Smyth: People across the country rely on local, accessible pharmacies, but whether it is high street closures or supply problems leading to the absurd situation where women are phoning or visiting  multiple pharmacies for a prescribed dose of hormone replacement therapy and other drugs, the Government are again letting people down. They have repeatedly announced plans to expand the role of community pharmacies, but have failed to update legislation that could possibly help. They keep collapsing the business in this place, so we have time to sort it. Why will they not do so?

Neil O'Brien: I have given a flavour of the four different reforms we are making. To give the wider picture, there are more pharmacies in England than there were in 2010, there are 24,000 more pharmacists in England than there were in 2010 and we are putting in £645 million to provide a bunch of services that were not there when Labour was in office. We are very happy to take lessons from the pharmacy sector, but not from the Labour party.

Brain Cancer Treatments

Meg Hillier: What steps he is taking to help improve the effectiveness of brain cancer treatments.

Will Quince: We are working closely with research partners, and although I am pleased to say that more research is being funded, we want to see more research in brain cancer treatments. We continue to encourage more researchers to become involved in what remains a challenging scientific area, with a relatively small research community, but I am confident that the Government’s continued commitment to funding will help us make progress towards effective treatments.

Meg Hillier: I thank the Minister for that answer, and I am sure—and I know—he will take this very seriously. I have had three constituents in the last year come to see me who have suffered serious brain tumours, and they have had a very similar pathway, which is basically that after a certain point there is little the NHS can do for them. In particular, there is a shortage of neuro-oncologists, and one has spent their life savings on private treatment, even though that was difficult to find. Is there any hope, in the NHS workforce plan, that there will be more oncology training and more support for neuro-oncology, because the survival rate for this cancer is still woefully low?

Will Quince: I thank the hon. Lady for her question, and I am sorry to hear of the experience of her three constituents. There certainly is hope within the long-term workforce plan. As she rightly alludes to, we are reliant on researchers to submit high-quality research proposals, and that requires clinicians specialising in this area. It is something I take very seriously, and I would be very happy to work with her on it.

Paul Bristow: I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
My father, the late Alan Bristow, died of a brain tumour in April 2020. He was 77, and that was incredibly sad, but when a child dies of a brain tumour, it is unbelievably wicked. Brain tumours are still the biggest killer of young people. What can the Minister do to  ensure that appropriate funding is being put into research into brain tumours, especially for younger people, and when will the Government respond to the O’Shaughnessy review into clinical trials in the UK, which would help the brain tumour community?

Will Quince: I thank my hon. Friend for his question, and I am sorry to hear of his own personal experience. He is absolutely right that, in relation to children, I am very keen to find a way forward. The Government are committed to finding high-quality brain cancer research, and we expect to spend more as new research progresses. The £40 million of funding announced will remain available, and if we can spend more on the best-quality science, we will do so. We worked really closely with Lord O’Shaughnessy on his review, we have accepted his recommendations and we have put in £121 million to support it.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the shadow Secretary of State.

Wes Streeting: The Minister is aware, I know, of the outstanding campaigning work that my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) is doing, not least because of the experience of her sister—our late great friend Margaret McDonagh—with glioblastomas. Over decades now, we have seen no improvements in outcomes, no drug trials of any seriousness and no mandatory training of oncologists. I have learned through experience that, when the McDonaghs come knocking, it is best to say yes, and if anyone says no, they will be hit by this unstoppable steamroller. With that cautionary note in mind, might the Minister be prepared to meet me, my hon. Friend and relevant stakeholders across the Department, NHS England and the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence to see what more can be done? There are challenges, I know, but what more can be done to make sure that, for families such as my hon. Friend’s and Margaret’s, and for thousands of others each year, glioblastomas are not simply a death sentence?

Will Quince: I thank the hon. Member for that question and join him in paying tribute to the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh), especially after the tragic loss of her sister, for all the work that she has done in campaigning on this issue. I have spent significant time on the issue and I have met her, the hon. Member for Leicester West (Liz Kendall), campaigners, charities and other hon. Members from across the House. Funding for research is available and, having spoken with the Secretary of State, I know that he is as keen as I am to work with colleagues from across the House. There are issues that transcend party politics and this is certainly one of them. I would be very happy to meet the shadow Secretary of State, the National Institute for Health and Care Research, NHS England, the Tessa Jowell Brain Cancer Mission and clinical specialists to find a way forward.

Mental Ill Health: West Yorkshire

Fabian Hamilton: What assessment he has made of the adequacy of treatments for complex mental health illnesses in West Yorkshire.

Maria Caulfield: NHS West Yorkshire integrated care boards have increased their investment in mental health services in line with their overall allocation increase. They have spent more than £591 million in the past financial year on their mental health services.

Fabian Hamilton: I thank the Minister for that answer. My constituent, Joanne Allotey, has custody of her young granddaughter, who has complex mental health problems, but local mental health services in Leeds are still chronically underfunded after 13 years of Conservative Government cuts. Will the Minister join me in commending Roundhay high school for the support that it has given the family—this is the same school that the former Prime Minister claimed “let down” children—and commit today to delivering truly effective children’s education, health and care plans?

Maria Caulfield: I absolutely pay tribute to the school in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency. I also point out that Red Kite View is a new unit specifically for young people in his constituency. That 22-bed mental health unit opened last year and aims to eliminate out-of-area placements for young children with mental ill health. I am sure that he would welcome that investment in his constituency.

Charles Walker: The Joint Committee on the Draft Mental Health Bill reported back in January this year. One of the most important recommendations we made was about how people, during a period of wellness, could set out how they wish to be treated during a period of illness. The Government have yet to respond to the Joint Committee, but can we have a mental health Bill in the forthcoming King’s Speech, please?

Maria Caulfield: I thank my hon. Friend for raising that issue. There were many recommendations during pre-legislative scrutiny. We are working through those and we hope to be able to respond fully shortly after the summer recess.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the shadow Minister.

Rosena Allin-Khan: As my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North East (Fabian Hamilton) highlighted, all too often, children are stuck on long waiting lists for treatment. In West Yorkshire, 30,000 children are currently stuck waiting for mental health treatment, and more than 9,000 people have had their mental health referral closed without accessing treatment. Does the Minister find that acceptable? If the answer is no, what will her Government do about it? This picture is not unique to West Yorkshire, but replicated across England. This Government are letting patients down. When is the Minister going to act to tackle the crisis in mental health services?

Maria Caulfield: I thank the shadow Minister for her question. To highlight another initiative in West Yorkshire, the Night OWLS—Overnight West Yorkshire Living/Advice Service—helpline has been set up for children and young people. It is open between 8 pm and 8 am seven days a week for young people to access, in addition to the 24/7 helpline that is available. I am sure that the shadow Minister will also welcome the fact that we have more   than 400 mental health support teams in schools in England, covering 3 million children, so that they can access mental health support directly at school.

Health Inequalities

Kate Osborne: What steps he is taking to help tackle health inequalities.

Neil O'Brien: We are tackling the root causes of health inequalities. We have doubled the duty on cigarettes and brought in a minimum excise tax on the cheapest cigarettes. That has helped to drive down smoking rates from 21% to a record low of 13%. We are going further, helping a million smokers with our scheme to get people to stop smoking and start vaping. We have provided £40 million to start rolling out new weight-loss drugs and, in the major conditions strategy, we will talk further about how we will tackle health inequalities.

Kate Osborne: People in the north-east die younger than people in the rest of England and spend more years in ill health. Increased NHS waiting times leaves them on medication for longer. The north-east has the highest level of people living in poverty, leaving many of my constituents unable to afford prescription charges. Some have told me that they are taking paracetamol instead of prescribed medication, worsening health inequalities. Will the Minister commit to scrapping these unfair prescription charges?

Neil O'Brien: Nine out of 10 prescriptions are not paid for, but free at the point of delivery. On the various important points that the hon. Lady makes, tackling health inequalities is hugely important to us. That is why we are creating 160 extra community diagnostic centres, which are targeted at areas of the highest deprivation. It is why we are rolling out targeted lung health checks in 43 areas of the most deprivation. It is also why we are providing cost of living support worth about £3,300 for the average household in this country. It is one of the most generous schemes anywhere in Europe, exactly to tackle those cost of living pressures and health inequalities.

Louie French: My hon. Friend will be aware that health inequalities can also be geographical within the south-east, with boroughs such as Bexley having historically received less funding than other parts of London. Does he therefore agree that further investment in the fantastic Queen Mary’s Hospital Sidcup would address that issue and improve health outcomes for people in south-east London?

Neil O'Brien: My hon. Friend is assiduous in making the case for his constituency. Ministers of course will meet him to discuss this matter. I know he is closely following the progress of the CDC bid, which we have been talking about. Those diagnostic centres are doing fantastic work to get earlier diagnosis and save more lives, particularly in areas of deprivation.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the shadow Minister.

Andrew Gwynne: From this complacent Minister’s replies already, one would think that health inequalities in England were improving, not widening. Last year, 11,000 people, including 312 children, were hospitalised for malnutrition in the  United Kingdom. That is the highest number since comparable records began. Why are so many people in Britain going hungry under the Tories?

Neil O'Brien: We need to have care in discussing these subjects. Eating disorders are a sensitive subject and the statistics the hon. Gentleman is quoting are a mix of different things. I have already talked about the £3,300 of cost of living support that this Government are providing to the average UK household, with more targeted help for more vulnerable households. It is something we are seized of and are working on.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the SNP spokesperson.

Martyn Day: Millions of people with disabilities or serious medical conditions rely on specialist equipment, such as ventilators or home dialysis, which personally costs them more money to run, while giving considerable savings to NHS hospitals. Will the Minister urge Cabinet colleagues in the Department for Work and Pensions to help to tackle health inequalities by ensuring that those people receive a fair and timely reimbursement for those additional costs, which are essential to run the equipment to help keep them alive?

Neil O'Brien: Absolutely. We are conscious of the additional needs of people who have equipment like that. By the end of June, the Government had covered nearly half of a typical household’s energy bill through the support schemes we put in place, but we are always looking at what more we can do to help vulnerable households.

Primary Care

Ian Byrne: What assessment his Department has made of the potential impact of primary care service closures on public health.

Neil O'Brien: Each integrated care board is required to ensure access to GP services for all. Overall, more people are being seen in general practice than ever before—about 10% more than before the pandemic—but where some practices close, the local ICB has to ensure that patients are transferred smoothly to other practices.

Ian Byrne: Park View medical centre in West Derby, one of the most deprived areas of my city, is facing imminent closure, and there has been a lack of transparency and accountability throughout the process when dealing with the ICB to get the decision reversed. In the Minister’s reply to my letter, he said it was essential that, if a GP surgery closes, it does not lead to a reduction in the quality of care for patients in the locality. Park View patients have been clear that dispersal to other surgeries would be catastrophic, especially when all GPs are already facing huge pressures. Will the Minister urgently intervene to halt the closure due to the legal insufficiency of the consultation process and meet me and patients?

Neil O'Brien: I have looked carefully at that case, on which the hon. Gentleman has been campaigning. The incumbent provider chose not to bid for the future contract for Park View medical centre, and NHS Cheshire and Merseyside decided that the best thing was to help patients to transfer to neighbouring practices. Patients  will only be transferred to practices rated as good, and there are 10 other practices rated as good within a 1-mile radius of Park View. Since 2019, there has been an increase in the number of patient-facing staff of about 50% in the constituency. That means there are more people in his GP surgeries. We are working hard to ensure high-quality GP services in his constituency.

Virginia Crosbie: Health is devolved to Labour in Cardiff. Ynys Môn is represented by five Members of the Senedd, yet health represents a third of my postbag, particularly relating to access to primary care in Holyhead. Does the Minister agree that families in Holyhead are not getting the healthcare they need and deserve?

Neil O'Brien: Yes, it is true, I am afraid. People are about twice as likely to be waiting for treatment in the Welsh NHS. Waits are also longer in Wales, with 30,000 people waiting more than two years for treatment, even though those have been eliminated in England. England spends more on general practice than Scotland or Wales, despite the fact that Wales has 20% more funding, and England has also grown spending on general practice faster than either Scotland or Wales. We are highly focused on getting good primary care services in England. There are always lessons that we can learn from each other, but there are definitely lessons that Welsh Labour can learn from the English NHS.

Vaccine Development and Evaluation

Neale Hanvey: What steps his Department is taking to create a vaccine development and evaluation centre.

Maria Caulfield: The vaccine development and evaluation centre, backed by £65 million for state-of-the-art facilities, at the Porton Down site has been operational since early last year. It supported the autumn vaccine roll-out and the spring vaccine roll-out earlier this year.

Neale Hanvey: In November 2021, Dame Kate Bingham rightly called the decision to withdraw support for the Valneva whole virus vaccine “inexplicable” because a broad portfolio of vaccines is important as we move forward against future variants. The British Society for Immunology states that there is an urgent need for second and third-generation covid vaccines, including universal mucosal vaccines with longer-lasting protective immunity. With growing public concern and mounting clinical and scientific evidence of vaccine injury from mRNA, why is the UK not seeking to harness the power of all technologies instead of establishing an inexplicable exclusive relationship with Moderna?

Maria Caulfield: I confirm to the hon. Gentleman that, in the recent spring campaign, we deployed four approved vaccines—Pfizer-BioNTech, Moderna, Novavax and Sanofi-GSK—as part of our roll-out. We are using a range of vaccines to protect us from the pandemic.

Young People’s Mental Health: Housing

Edward Leigh: Whether his Department has made an assessment with Cabinet colleagues of the potential impact of the availability of housing on young people’s mental health.

Maria Caulfield: We are working with a number of Government Departments, including the Department for Work and Pensions and the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, to tackle the effect of housing insecurity on young people’s mental health.

Edward Leigh: The mental health of young people is being impacted by the fact that net migration is far too high and we are not building nearly enough houses. The Government need to take action on that, but young people worry that, with an ageing population, the health service will not be able to provide for them in future. May I commend to the Minister the excellent paper published by the former Labour Prime Minister Tony Blair, which suggests things such as co-payments and personalised apps? Would it not be ironic if a former Labour Prime Minister were more radical on reform of the NHS than a Conservative Government?

Maria Caulfield: Actually, under this Government, last year, the number of first-time buyers passed the 400,000 mark, which is the highest number in 19 years. I will not take any lectures from a former Labour Prime Minister because when Labour was in government it saddled the NHS with a £10 billion failed IT system that never saw the light of day, an £80 billion failed private finance initiative contract that NHS trusts are still paying for, and a GP contract that enabled opt-out at weekends and evenings, which patients still suffer from.

Sarah Olney: Today marks the three-year anniversary of the death of Tom Pirie, who tragically took his own life just days after being assessed as at low risk of doing so by his counsellor. Over the last few years, I have been working with Tom’s father Philip on his campaign to improve suicide risk assessment procedure, particularly in view of the upcoming 10-year suicide prevention strategy review. Will the Minister join me in paying tribute to Tom’s life and Philip’s excellent work in his memory by providing us with an update as to when we can expect the review to be published?

Maria Caulfield: I absolutely pay tribute to Tom and to his father. I reassure him that we have many campaigners. Only last week, we received the baton of hope at No. 10 from those campaigning to reduce the number of suicides in this country. We are working on the suicide prevention plan and hope to be able to publish it very soon.

Hormone Replacement Therapy

Carolyn Harris: What steps he is taking to tackle shortages in hormone replacement therapy.

Maria Caulfield: We continue to engage regularly with our suppliers to prevent and mitigate supply issues in the short term. We have over 70 HRT products. The vast majority are available. We have two that have serious shortage protocols attached to them, but we are hoping to improve supply on those very soon.

Carolyn Harris: Although shortages of Utrogestan are ongoing, there is no alternative progesterone product recommended on the serious shortage protocol. Taking oestrogen without progesterone can be dangerous. Provera is a synthetic progesterone alternative to Utrogestan, but it is not included on the HRT prepayment certificate. Will the Minister commit to placing Provera on the list of products covered by the prepayment certificate as a priority and issue a public health warning highlighting the risks of taking oestrogen without progesterone?

Maria Caulfield: We are in the process of issuing another bulletin to both GPs and pharmacists on the serious shortage protocols and to make clear the alternatives available. That is a clinical decision. I will certainly look at the issue of Provera because medicines have to tick off a number of criteria to be eligible for the prepayment certificate. I will certainly look into that particular drug on the hon. Lady’s behalf.

Social Care Workforce

Desmond Swayne: What steps he is taking to increase the social care workforce.

Helen Whately: Social care depends on the skills and compassion of our care workforce. That is why we are investing £250 million in reforming care as a career, with a new care qualification, specialist training courses for experienced care workers and a new career structure to support progression, alongside increased funding for social care, our national recruitment campaign and the care worker visa.

Desmond Swayne: We need many, many more domiciliary care workers. How will we get them?

Helen Whately: My right hon. Friend is right. We have some good news: Skills for Care data shows that home care job vacancies are falling—something I hear when I speak to home care providers. Looking ahead to next winter, I want every local authority to have enough home care on hand. That is why I emphasised the importance of home care when we distributed £600 million of discharge funding to local councils and NHS organisations in April. We are asking all local authorities to plan ahead and book enough home care in advance for this coming winter.

Barry Sheerman: Is this not the very day to thank our care workers up and down the country? So many families depend on those people who toil away, day by day, visiting houses, often not being paid in between their visits. Could we look closely at recruitment and the agencies involved? Let us get real pay for care workers up, now.

Helen Whately: I think that every day is a good day to thank our care workers for their skills, compassion and hard work. We gave social care a record funding settlement of up to £7.5 billion in the autumn statement, which is being used to help local authorities increase the fees that they pay to care providers, in turn enabling care providers to pay their workforce better. That is going hand in hand with extra funding to support discharge into social care this winter and our reforms for the care workforce.

Care Settings: Family Visits

Dan Carden: What steps he is taking to ensure that people in care settings are permitted family visits.

Helen Whately: I know how important it is for people in care homes, hospitals and hospices to see their family and friends. The majority of health and care providers follow national guidance. I do not want anyone to worry about not being able to visit a loved one, which is why in June we launched a consultation to change the law on visiting.

Dan Carden: As the Minister knows, last month I introduced my ten-minute rule Bill, the Care Supporters Bill, to make sure that we recognise in law the value of the care of a loved one. Will her consultation differentiate between a care supporter and a visitor? Currently, the Care Quality Commission does not investigate individual cases. Will it have the power to do that in future?

Helen Whately: First, I commend the hon. Member for his campaign on this issue. He has been a powerful advocate and draws on his own experience, as do I. He is probably asking me to pre-empt the outcome of the consultation. I encourage him and others concerned about this matter to put their views into that consultation, and we will respond once it is closed.

International Health Regulations

Esther McVey: What recent progress he has made in negotiations with the World Health Organisation on proposed amendments to the International Health Regulations 2005.

Will Quince: The UK continues to negotiate on amendments, alongside other member states of the World Health Organisation. We want to ensure that the International Health Regulations are effective in preventing and responding to potential health threats, leaving the UK better prepared for future health emergencies. We anticipate negotiations to continue until the 77th World Health Assembly in May next year.

Esther McVey: Will the Minister assure me that the proposed changes to the International Health Regulations being negotiated will not give new rule-making powers, such as those tabled by Bangladesh, to the WHO director general to make binding directions on matters including border closures, quarantining and vaccine passports? Even the WHO’s own expert review committee has raised concerns over such significant increases in power.

Will Quince: As my right hon. Friend will know, the UK has a strong commitment and duty to implement international law, but on this matter we have been absolutely clear. I can certainly assure her that we will not sign up to any IHR amendment or any other instrument that would compromise the UK’s ability to make domestic decisions on national measures concerning public health.

Andrew Bridgen: Can the Minister confirm whether the House will get a vote on the amendments to the International Health Regulations, or will we not?

Will Quince: Should the UK Government wish to accept an IHR amendment, changes to domestic law to reflect proposed obligations may indeed be required. The Government would therefore prepare draft legislation and bring it before Parliament in the usual way. Let me repeat that in all circumstances, the sovereignty of the UK Parliament would remain unchanged and the UK would retain control of any future decisions around national public health measures.

Coroners: Stillbirths

Tim Loughton: If he will publish the results of the consultation on giving powers to coroners to investigate stillbirths.

Maria Caulfield: The consultation on giving powers to coroners to investigate stillbirths received 334 responses, including from bereaved parents, charities, the Chief Coroner, clinicians and a range of other organisations.

Tim Loughton: Mr Speaker, you are very familiar with the problems over the implementation of my Civil Partnerships, Marriages and Deaths (Registration etc) Act 2019, which passed this House in February 2019. Section 4 remains incomplete. The consultation was completed in June 2019. Mr Speaker, you are aware that I made six attempts to get a meeting with the Minister and a Justice Minister. Eventually, I got it in March, after the Leader of the House intervened. Four months on, I have heard nothing and the consultation remains unpublished. What will it take to get this legislation, which everyone wants and which was passed unanimously, into law?

Maria Caulfield: I thank my hon. Friend for his work in this space and I apologise for the delay in publishing the consultation. I met him along with a Justice Minister, and I assure him that we hope to publish it very soon.

Topical Questions

Flick Drummond: If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

Steve Barclay: Last week, on behalf of the Government, I signed a landmark partnership agreement with the pharmaceutical giant BioNTech. It aims to deliver 10,000 personalised mRNA cancer immunotherapies, including vaccines, to UK patients by 2030. This work will harness the groundbreaking mRNA technology that BioNTech used in its world-first cancer vaccine. Cancer vaccines work by stimulating patients’ immune systems to recognise and eliminate cancer cells, preventing their spread. Trials for BioNTech’s colorectal cancer vaccine are under way at multiple sites across the UK. To accelerate trials further, BioNTech is partnering with NHS England’s new cancer vaccine launch pad, a platform that makes it easier for both early and late stage cancer patients to join vaccine trials. In the coming years, hundreds of patients identified by the launch pad will join trials for BioNTech’s personalised cancer therapies, broadening the treatment options available to cancer patients. I hope the whole House will welcome the opportunity the deal offers future patients.

Flick Drummond: The announcement that a new hospital between Winchester and Basingstoke is going ahead is much welcomed by my constituents who will use it, as well as by those from other constituencies. It will provide a centre of excellence with better medical outcomes. Will my right hon. Friend meet local MPs, so we can update him on why the hospital needs to be built as soon as possible?

Steve Barclay: I am always very happy for my hon. Friend and other colleagues to meet me or Lord Markham, who leads the capital programme. It is an important scheme. We are delivering it through the standardised Hospital 2.0 approach, using modern methods of construction. We are keen to progress early supported works on site, working closely with colleagues.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the shadow Secretary of State.

Wes Streeting: Last week, the Health Secretary said that he was willing to offer doctors a higher pay rise. Last night, the Chancellor slapped him down, saying that any increased offer will have to be paid for by cuts. How can the Health Secretary negotiate an end to the NHS strikes when he cannot even negotiate with his own Chancellor?

Steve Barclay: We have been clear throughout that Government decisions on the pay review bodies’ recommendations are taken on a cross-Government basis. The agreement that we reached with the largest group of NHS staff, those on “Agenda for Change”, has demonstrated that we are willing to work constructively with trade union colleagues, but the demand from junior doctors for a 35% increase is not affordable—indeed, the hon. Gentleman himself has said that he does not support it.

Wes Streeting: But the worst strikes in the history of the NHS are still to come. The impact of the junior doctors’ strikes and the consultants’ strikes will be devastating for patients. The Secretary of State has failed to stop these strikes for seven months. He has lost the confidence of nurses, radiologists, junior doctors and consultants, and he cannot even successfully negotiate with his Chancellor, so what is his plan to stop these strikes going ahead?

Steve Barclay: The hon. Gentleman’s message is not even consistent with what he said at the weekend in the media: that he was not in a position to offer more money to the NHS, and that the shadow Chancellor had made that clear—in a vain attempt to demonstrate some sort of fiscal responsibility. The hon. Gentleman has been clear that he does not support the 35% demand from doctors in training. We are demonstrating that we are working constructively with groups such as the “Agenda for Change” group—the largest staff group, made up of over 1 million staff—with which we have reached a deal. We have also been responding constructively to the British Medical Association’s principal demand for consultants, which was for changes to pension taxation. We are willing to engage constructively with trade union colleagues, but the 35% demand is not affordable. He needs to decide on his position. Which is it: his position at the weekend that the Opposition are not offering more money, or his position today, which seems to be that they will?

David Johnston: I have campaigned for more health services for my constituents since I was elected, and 97% of those who responded to my recent health services survey felt that we did not have enough doctors for the number of people in the constituency. Will my hon. Friend meet me to discuss how to sort this out and get my constituents the health services that they deserve?

Neil O'Brien: We are conscious that more is going on in general practice than ever before. There are 10% more appointments than before the pandemic, as well as 29,000 extra clinicians and nearly 2,000 more doctors, but we are conscious of the pressures that puts on the estate locally. I would be very happy to meet and have further conversations with my hon. Friend.

Kirsten Oswald: I am sure that the Secretary of State shares my concern that school nurses report increasing rates of children presenting with health issues resulting from poor nutrition. In Scotland, the SNP Government have rolled out universal free school meals for all pupils in primary years 1 to 5 and special schools, and the expansion of the programme continues. What discussion has the Secretary of State had with Cabinet colleagues about following Scotland’s lead and expanding free school meal provision in England to improve children’s health and wellbeing?

Steve Barclay: Of course we have regular discussions, not just with Cabinet colleagues, but with our counterparts across the UK. I had a meeting just yesterday with Health Ministers, including my counterpart in Scotland, on the shared challenges. On the issue that the hon. Lady raises, as the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Neil O’Brien) said a moment ago, we are providing significant support for households—over £3,300 in support—but we also have measures that target schools, including holiday support measures and wider health and wellbeing measures, such as our significant investment in school sport.

Julian Sturdy: The Minister is fully aware of Bupa’s decision to close its dental clinic in York, at Holgate Park. I put on record my thanks to him for working with me to find a solution for those constituents affected by the decision. What is being done to reassess out-of-date dental contracts, so that we can ensure that increased demand is met and that my constituents get the access to dental care that they deserve?

Steve Barclay: We are taking action, which is why the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough met my hon. Friend recently. In his area of Humber and North Yorkshire, there has been an increase in the number of children seen by NHS dentists over the previous 12 months, so the picture is improving, but we recognise that there is more to do; that is why we have made a number of reforms to the dental contract and why we will announce further plans shortly.

Mike Kane: A recent freedom of information request by the Labour party revealed that mental health patients were left waiting more than 5.4 million hours for treatment in A&E last year. Last week, one of my constituents spent five days in A&E waiting for a bed on a psychiatric ward. When will the Government bring an end to this shameful situation?

Steve Barclay: We are taking significant action on mental health, which is why we are investing £2.3 billion more, compared with four years ago. We have targeted measures as part of our urgent and emergency care recovery plan, including 100 mental health ambulances. We are putting in additional capacity, such as crisis cafés, to support emergency departments. We are also making mental health support available through 111 for the first time, which will allow us to get to issues early, before people are admitted to hospital.

Matt Vickers: I was delighted when the Government awarded Stockton a new £25 million diagnostic hub, but my local Labour council, which is a partner in delivering the project, appears happy to accept months of delays in completing it. Does my hon. Friend agree that Labour’s delays could cost lives? Will he work with me to ensure that all partners understand the urgency of the project?

Will Quince: That is hugely frustrating, because I know how hard my hon. Friend campaigned for the Stockton community diagnostic centre and that he recognises the urgency of increasing diagnostic capacity locally. Delivery plans have to be agreed at a local level, so I urge Stockton council to work with him to meet the ambitious timeline and get Stockton CDC open as soon as possible.

Steven Bonnar: A recent report by the Trussell Trust warns that people facing hunger are more likely to be affected by spiralling debt and a decline in their physical and mental health. The same report shows that one in seven people in the UK faced hunger in the last year due to a lack of money. Will the Minister make representations to his colleagues at the Department for Work and Pensions about increasing support for low-income households, thereby improving public health outcomes for all?

Neil O'Brien: It is to protect public health that we have provided cost of living support worth £3,300 on average per household, and that is why we have been paying about half of people’s average electricity and other energy bills. However, we always look at further things we can do to drive improvements in public health.

Andrew Lewer: What steps is the Department taking to prevent chronic kidney disease, given that the recent report published by Kidney Research UK predicts a significant rise in cases of kidney failure in 10 years’ time?

Helen Whately: In the last three years, the National Institute for Health and Care Research has invested more than £30 million in kidney disease research. NHS England is following a   national approach to reduce healthcare inequalities, with a specific focus on some of the risk factors for kidney disease, such as chronic respiratory disease. As diabetes is the most common cause of kidney disease, it will be a focus of our major conditions strategy.

Marsha de Cordova: Four in 10 people who visit low vision clinics have been diagnosed with clinical depression. It is vital that blind and partially sighted people have access to psychological therapies throughout their sight loss journey to address the impacts. However, National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidance does not include psychological support in the eye care pathway. Will the Secretary of State commit to reviewing the NICE guidance to ensure that psychological therapies are integrated into the eye care pathway?

Steve Barclay: The hon. Lady raises an important issue. I would be keen to take it away and look at it to see how we can work together to pick it up.

Jason McCartney: Many of my constituents are still struggling to get NHS dental appointments, so what is happening right now—this week, this month—to increase the availability of NHS dental appointments for them?

Neil O'Brien: I know how intensely my hon. Friend is campaigning on this issue. The amount of NHS dentistry being delivered has gone up by a fifth over the last year, partly as a result of the reforms we are already rolling out. He will have seen in the workforce plan that we are going to increase training places for dentists by 40% so that we have the NHS dentists we need. However, that is not all we will do, and our forthcoming dental plan will take further steps.

Debbie Abrahams: We have known for a while that our life expectancy is shorter than it was in 2010. However, we are now seeing impacts on children in the UK, who are about 7 cm shorter at five compared, for example, with the children of our neighbours in Holland. What is the Secretary of State doing on this issue, and will he support the all-party parliamentary group on health in all policies in assessing the impacts on health and health inequalities?

Neil O'Brien: Of course we are taking action to improve public health, and that includes children’s nutrition. That is why we are spending £150 million on healthy food schemes, such as the school fruit and vegetable scheme, the nursery milk scheme and Healthy Start. It is also why we are investing £330 million a year in school sport and the PE premium and a further £300 million through the youth investment fund. We will continue to take action on this key issue.

Jonathan Lord: I am delighted that a new diagnostic centre is shortly to be built at our terrific Woking Community Hospital, very close to Woking town centre. Does the Minister agree that providing state-of-the-art diagnostic care right in the heart of the community can cut NHS waiting lists, reduce carbon emissions and, most importantly, help to optimise health outcomes for patients?

Steve Barclay: Not only do I agree, but I have been with my hon. Friend to see this scheme at first hand. He has championed the scheme vociferously and helped to secure that investment for his constituents. I look forward to working with him to ensure it is delivered as quickly as possible.

Tim Farron: Plans to remove overnight primary care clinicians from Westmorland General Hospital three nights a week are a massive risk to our community and mean that, overnight, people will be reliant on Barrow or Penrith for an out-of-hours doctor. Will the Secretary of State instruct the ICB to intervene to protect people in South Lakeland from this massive reduction in the quality and accessibility of services?

Steve Barclay: Some of us remember when the Lib Dems were for greater localism. One of the things we are looking at is how to empower commissioners, on a place-based basis, to make decisions on where best to place services. We need to move more services into the community upstream, to address the frail elderly before they get to hospital and to have more community services. I am happy to look at the specific issue the hon. Gentleman raises, but I would have thought the Lib Dems would support the general trend of empowering integrated commissioning systems to make place-based decisions.

Greg Clark: Several important pharmacies in my constituency, including the one in Hawkhurst, have been experiencing pressures, with long queues of customers sometimes going outside the door. It is said that access to trained pharmacists is proving very challenging. Will the Secretary of State comment on the situation and say what steps he might be able to take to alleviate the pressure?

Steve Barclay: There are a number of measures in the primary care recovery plan, from how we better use the skills mix within pharmacies to how we deregulate some of the tasks that take up pharmacists’ time, such as the requirement for a pharmacist to be present after drugs have already been prepared or to clip out tablets because they do not match the number prescribed by a GP. There are a number of areas in which we can better use the skills mix, and there are areas where we can take load off pharmacists. We are also funding additional services through Pharmacy First to support the pharmacy model.

Rachael Maskell: The number of deaths increased by 13.5% in December 2022, particularly around influenza and pneumonia—up by 26.2%—so York’s public health team want to know what the Government are going to do about winter planning and when.

Steve Barclay: We set out comprehensive plans for winter preparation in the urgent and emergency recovery plan. Similar to what I said a moment ago, this includes making much better use of community schemes, particularly those targeted at the frail elderly, and making better use of technology through schemes such as virtual wards. It has also put additional bed capacity into hospitals, with more than £1 billion of funding for 5,000 more permanent beds to help alleviate the pressure on bed occupancy and get flow through hospitals, which is so important to addressing the pressure on ambulances.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the Chairman of the Health and Social Care Committee.

Steve Brine: Back to NHS dentistry, I am afraid. Later this week, the Select Committee will publish its report on NHS dentistry services. Spoiler alert: it will be uncomfortable reading for some. Will the Secretary of State tell us when and how he plans to bring forward plans for the tie-in of newly qualified dentists? Could that go hand in hand with a “return to the NHS” campaign for dentists who have already left that part of the service?

Steve Barclay: It is characteristically astute of my hon. Friend to zero in on the tie-in, which is an important part of the long-term workforce plan. Around two thirds of dentists do not go into NHS work after training, so having a tie-in is more pertinent there than it might be elsewhere in the NHS workforce.[Official Report, 12 July 2023, Vol. 736, c. 8MC.] I look forward to the Select Committee’s report but, with some of the reforms already in place, we are boosting the number of patients treated. There were a fifth more dental treatments in 2022 than in the previous year. We are also making NHS dentistry more attractive with some of the changes to the previous 2006 contract, but we recognise that there is more to do, which is why we will shortly set out our dental recovery plan.

Barbara Keeley: I have received a wave of concern from clinicians on the safety of using physician associates, following my Adjournment debate last week in which I raised the death of Emily Chesterton, the 30-year-old daughter of my constituents Marion and Brendan. Emily died of a pulmonary embolism after being seen twice by the same physician associate at her GP practice. The physician associate failed to refer her to a doctor or to a hospital emergency unit for tests, which the coroner concluded could have prevented her death.
Yesterday, on “Good Morning Britain”, the Secretary of State boasted of increasing the number of people working in primary care, presumably including the workforce plan proposal to triple the use of physician associates. Will he look urgently at the details of Emily Chesterton’s case and ask himself whether lessons can be learned to avoid other preventable deaths?

Will Quince: Having responded to the hon. Lady’s Adjournment debate last Thursday, I hear the calls she has made. I know that she has also written to the Secretary of State, and I will ensure that she gets a full response, with answers to all the questions she raises.

William Wragg: My good friend the mental health Minister—the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Maria Caulfield)—will know that I have been busy beavering away, together with the UK Government’s mental health ambassador, Dr Alex George, on the early support mental health hubs project. It will relieve pressure on child and adolescent mental health services and save undue distress and money. The pilot scheme is ready to go. Might I suggest that the shared outcomes fund could be the means to press on with the pilot?

Steve Barclay: Dr Alex George does a lot of fantastic work. I am due to meet him shortly in the coming days, and I look forward to that discussion. My hon. Friend is right to highlight the importance of getting more mental health support into the community, which is exactly what our additional funding is focused on delivering.

Mike Amesbury: Eighteen community pharmacists in my constituency are reporting challenges on medicine supplies. What more is the Minister going to do to get a grip of this situation?

Steve Barclay: We have a long-standing team in the Department focused on medical supplies, which are a continual issue; as a matter of routine business, there are often challenges in that area. If the hon. Gentleman has specific issues he wishes to raise, we would be happy to look at them, but we have a dedicated team in the Department that focuses on that exact point.

Anna Firth: As my right hon. Friend knows, I have been campaigning for £118 million of capital funding, the majority of it for Southend University Hospital, ever since I was elected. I am grateful that he has recently confirmed that the funding is secure. A new business plan is being submitted, including £9 million of enabling funding. Will he look upon that favourably and swiftly?

Steve Barclay: As my hon. Friend knows, I have already met her to discuss this scheme, and the impediment was the business plan that came forward from the local  trust—further work was being done on that. She is right to highlight our capital investment more widely. This Government have committed to investing in the biggest ever hospital building programme, with more than £20 billion. That is in addition to our long-term workforce plan—the first time the NHS has done this—in which we are making a further £2.4 billion of investment.

Mary Foy: Is the Minister aware that the NHS North East and North Cumbria mental health and wellbeing hub is due to close this September? With mental health care in crisis in County Durham, that is an insult to the health and social care staff who desperately rely on those services. Will the Minister reverse that decision?

Steve Barclay: There are two issues here. One is how much investment we are prioritising towards mental health; the other is how local commissioners choose to prioritise services within those communities, and whether we try to run all of those decisions from the centre in Whitehall or embrace the 42 integrated care systems and allow them to make commissioning decisions. The bottom line is that we are spending much more on mental health, with an increase of £2.3 billion compared with the position four years ago. That is allowing us to replace 500 dormitory beds and provide 100 mental health ambulances, three new mental health hospitals, 160 projects such as crisis cafés to support accident and emergency, and £75 million to help those with mental health challenges get back into work, which is one of the best prevention measures we can take for people who are suffering with their mental health.

Financial Services Reforms

Andrew Griffith: With permission, Mr Speaker, I will update the House on the Government’s latest efforts to make the UK the most open, innovative and competitive financial centre in the world.
We know how important financial and related professional services are to this country. They employ more than 2.5 million people and generate more than £100 billion in tax revenue. Two thirds of those jobs lie outside the south-east and London. As we lay the foundations for long-term growth, it is vital that these sectors continue to succeed.
Last night, at Mansion House, the Chancellor made clear some of the policies that this Government will pursue, building on last year’s Edinburgh reforms. The full package of policies was published this morning, and I am pleased to share some of them with the House at this first opportunity. They fall under three themes: first, through a series of measures, improving outcomes for long-term savers and increasing investment in high-growth companies by reforming the UK’s pension market; secondly, incentivising companies to start and stay in the UK by strengthening our position as a listings destination; and thirdly, reforming and simplifying  our financial services rulebook to ensure that we  have the most growth-friendly markets possible, without compromising our commitment to high-quality regulation.
I begin with our pensions market, which is the largest in Europe and worth more than £2.5 trillion. The market is meant to provide safe retirement income for later life. In many cases, it does a very good job of that, but it can do so much more. I pay huge tribute to the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Laura Trott), for her crucial work on this.
In laying out our plan, the Chancellor has set three golden rules: first, that in everything we do, we will seek to secure the best possible outcomes for pension savers, with their needs first and foremost; secondly, that we will always prioritise a strong and diversified gilt market as we seek to deliver evolutionary change in our pensions market; and thirdly, that the decisions we take must always strengthen the UK’s competitive position as a leading financial centre.
Today, however, UK institutional investors invest less in UK high-growth companies than their international counterparts. While many defined-benefit funds are in surplus, their returns are lower than some international peers, and some may still be underfunded. At the same time, on their current trajectory, some defined-contribution schemes may not provide the returns that their pension fund holders expect.
Critically, DC schemes also invest less than 1% in unlisted equity. Australian schemes, for example, invest around 5%. To bridge that gap, the Chancellor joined the Lord Mayor and chief executives of many of our largest DC schemes to sign the Mansion House compact. Its signatories, who represent around two thirds of the entire market, are committed to the objective of allocating at least 5% of their default funds to unlisted equities by 2030, unlocking up to £50 billion of investment in high-growth companies by that time—helping companies to grow while improving rates of return for investors.
To further boost returns, we will facilitate a programme of DC consolidation. As the Department for Work and Pensions, Pensions Regulator and Financial Conduct Authority response to the value for money framework consultation makes clear, investment decisions should be made based on long-term returns and not simply on cost. Pension schemes that are not achieving the best outcome for their members will face being wound up by the Pensions Regulator, and we will set out a road map to encourage new collective DC funds.
To help schemes access a wider range of investment opportunities, we have launched the LIFTS—long-term investment for technology and science—competition, which enables them to invest quickly and effectively in unlisted high-growth companies. Bids have already started to come in for up to £250 million of Government support, and we are considering them closely. We will also explore the case for Government to play a greater role in establishing investment vehicles, building on the skills and expertise of the British Business Bank’s commercial arm.
Meanwhile, on defined-benefit schemes, we recognise that the regulatory landscape is too fragmented and believe that there is scope for consolidation. We have launched a call for evidence on the role of the Pension Protection Fund and the part that defined-benefit schemes play in productive investment.
Taken together, our pensions announcement will have a real and significant impact. For an average earner who starts saving at the age of 18, these measures could increase the size of their pension pot by 12% over their career. That is more than £1,000 a year in retirement. That is a real upgrade to the power and the outcomes of our pension schemes.
We already have the largest stock market in Europe, and, in 2021, we attracted the most IPOs—initial public offerings—outside the US, but we want the world’s fastest growing companies to grow here and to list here. We have now published our near-final draft legislation on prospectus reforms, which will create a more effective regime than its EU predecessor, giving companies more flexibility to raise even larger sums from investors more quickly. We welcome Rachel Kent’s excellent Investment Research Review, which was published this morning, and the Government are accepting all the recommendations made to us.
As we continue to free ourselves from outdated retained EU laws, we have abolished protectionist rules, such as the share trading obligation and double volume cap, so that UK businesses can access the best and most liquid markets anywhere in the world.
Finally, we are ensuring that our financial services sector has the regulatory freedom to innovate at a speed that matches our modern world. To that end, the House recently passed the Financial Services and Markets Act 2023, which requires our regulators to facilitate growth and international competitiveness alongside their other objectives. With it, we have published today legislation to repeal almost 100 pieces of retained EU law for financial services that are irrelevant to our markets, such as payment account regulations and long-term investment funds, and we say farewell to the unloved packaged retail and insurance-based investment products. This is not divergence for divergence’s sake, but sensible reforms working with the sector.
This is a significant body of work. This Government’s vision for the UK is one of long-term growth, fuelled by strong British finance, providing returns for savers, funding for businesses, and investments for our economy. That is what we are focused on, and that is what these reforms deliver.

Tulip Siddiq: I thank the Minister for an advance copy of his statement. However, after 13 years of a low growth, low investment economy, these promises are too little, too late. On this Government’s watch, far too many high growth firms, particularly in the tech sector, have been bought by foreign competitors or have chosen to list in the US, in order to scale-up and grow.
Arm holdings, a UK tech success story, is now set to float in New York rather than in London. The Chancellor has been completely silent on this. When alarm bells were ringing, the Ministers shrugged their shoulders. Capital held in pension funds is vital for the growth of our most innovative companies. In the US, approximately 70% of venture capital funding comes from pension funds, while in the UK the figure is below 20%. That is just not good enough. This Government’s failure to mobilise pension money into productive assets comes at a cost. British pension savers have not been getting the returns that they should expect. It seems that a person is more likely to own a share in UK infrastructure today if they are a Canadian teacher rather than a British citizen.
Time and again, the Conservative party has promised action to unlock the patient capital that British firms need to thrive and grow, but has failed to deliver. There would surely be greater confidence given to savers, growing firms and financial services if the Government had provided more detail yesterday on how to turn this around. The Chancellor’s compact for DC pension funds lacks any plan to ensure that this will increase investment in UK assets rather than simply going overseas. What guarantee can the Government provide that British high growth firms will be able to access the capital they need to thrive and create good jobs in every part of the UK? With no clear roadmap, how will that be achieved?
I turn to what the Chancellor said last night about wanting to make London a listings destination. It is as though his party had not been in government for 13 years now. I remind the Chancellor that he was sitting around the Cabinet table for the best part of a decade during that time. Labour has been calling for action on listing for months and the Government have refused to listen. In the first quarter of this year there were just four London listings, raising only £81 million, the sixth-worst quarter for IPOs in London since 1995. That is pitiful.
I acknowledge and indeed welcome the fact that in some areas the Government are rather belatedly starting to follow Labour’s lead, but what has taken them so long? Where was the urgency, the ambition and the drive? Can the Minister explain why there was nothing at all in the Chancellor’s speech on green finance? That complacency puts our status as a net zero financial centre at risk.
Labour is committed to ensuring that the City retains its competitiveness outside the EU, whether through creating a positive environment for fintech or reform of Solvency II, and doing so without compromising on stability. Yet the Government have promised Solvency II reform 10 times in recent years with nothing to show for it.
We, and the country, will not take any lessons on financial stability from a Government that set fire to the economy last autumn with their mini Budget. That resulted in a Tory mortgage bombshell, with families facing £240 per month in higher mortgage costs when remortgaging, through no fault of their own. The truth is that the Chancellor’s Mansion House speech was not a big bang at all—it was a small splutter. There was none of the detail required to build confidence, no responsibility taken for the last 13 years of economic failure, and no strategy to end the doom loop of Tory economic failure.
The Labour party has a plan to unlock the full potential of the private sector to get the British economy growing again in the national interest. Through our active partnership with the City, reforms to the British Business Bank and a modern industrial strategy, we will grow the economy and help Britain to become the best place to start and grow a business. This tired Tory Government are out of time. It is time for them to step aside so that we can have a Government who will favour the national British interest—[Interruption.] There is no point Conservative Members laughing. The truth is that we need a Labour Government to provide the energy, the ideas and the leadership that our country and our constituents desperately need.

Andrew Griffith: It is always a pleasure to listen to the hon. Lady. In general, what I learn is that the Opposition have no plan. It is all critique and no counter-proposal. She talked about this being too little, too late, but this Government are moving at pace, in what the sector acknowledges as one of the fastest rates of implementation of financial services reform for a generation, taking advantage of our Brexit freedoms and the regained control of our rulebook, which she and her party seek to oppose again and again.
The hon. Lady talked about the lack of growth, but under Labour I am told that the percentage of the workforce with a private pension declined by 20%. She also talked about patient capital, which should not be a point of disagreement between us. This Government have done an enormous amount to support British patient capital, with £2.3 billion of investment, and we have recently increased the length of the British patient capital scheme for a further period.
The hon. Lady also talked about capital going overseas, but that is nothing to the degree to which capital would be flooding overseas were her party ever to return to power, accelerating us to the point where once again the Chief Secretary to the Treasury is writing notes to remind us there is no money left. I potentially discern a point of difference between us, which perhaps in due course she will clarify, in the approach to the compact. It is not the position of this Government to mandate where people’s pensions should be invested. Indeed, the last time a Labour Chancellor decided what was good for our pension schemes, it did not end well.
Finally, the hon. Lady talked about green finance. This Government are doing a copious amount on green finance; only yesterday my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero met some of the world leaders in green finance, and earlier this year we published an ambitious green finance strategy, continuing the UK’s progression to being one of the world’s first net zero-aligned financial centres.

Rosie Winterton: I call the Chair of the Treasury Committee.

Harriett Baldwin: I should probably note in this context that I am a trustee of the Parliamentary Contributory Pension Fund.
I warmly welcome the work that the Economic Secretary and the pensions Minister have done in this important area, and strongly endorse what the Economic Secretary says about its meaning that future pensioners will be able to retire with higher pension incomes. However, he will know that I have put another piece of urgent work in his inbox, about helping the 93% of our constituents who are unable to afford access to financial advice and have to rely on bog-standard generic guidance. Can he update the House on how his review of the advice-guidance boundary is going and how he will help the majority of people who save in defined-contribution schemes to get access to some sort of personalised coaching or guidance?

Andrew Griffith: It is always a pleasure to respond to my hon. Friend and to the work of her tremendous Treasury Committee, which rages across this broad financial sector. She is right to raise the question of access to financial advice; I am afraid the world of financial services regulation is fraught with unintended consequences, and one unintended consequence of financial regulation and a growing compensation culture is to move financial advice beyond the financial ability of so many people who would benefit from receiving it. That is called the advice gap. I and my officials continue to work on that and I look forward to sharing proposals with the House and with my hon. Friend and her Committee in the autumn.

Rosie Winterton: I call the SNP spokesperson.

Stewart Hosie: I thank the Economic Secretary for his statement. I agree with him on regulation, where he said that regulators would be required to facilitate growth and competitiveness alongside their other objectives. However, as he knows, unless the central bank is obliged to do the same, we might end up in the rather odd and undesirable position of regulators and the central bank taking contradictory actions. I want to ask mainly about pension reform: under the Mansion House compact, potentially 5% of the DC funds are to go towards unlisted equities. There is huge potential in that for growth, for innovation, for jobs, for global competitiveness and for scaling up to compete, but that comes with a commensurate risk, which is presumably up to 5% of the value of the DC fund, should the value of that unlisted equity be wiped out.
While I hope the scheme succeeds, what liability would fall on the Pension Protection Fund should it fail? What liability might there be on the taxpayer? If the scheme works and the value of the funds increases,  what guarantee is there that the pension holder will receive the entire value of that increase and it will not be gobbled up by unnecessary and excessive fees?

Andrew Griffith: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his support for growth and competitiveness. We have talked regularly about the need for regulators to improve their performance and deliver better outcomes for those whom they regulate. He talked about the 5%, and I emphasise that, ultimately, it is a voluntary pact; it is for the individual trustees to make those decisions, and the Government continue to have in place a strong programme of regulation. However, I hope he respects the fact that there is risk in inaction as well—the risk that our pension beneficiaries do not receive the pensions that they deserve or the sort of performance from their pension that other international long-term savers benefit from. He raises the issue of defined contribution and the liability for the taxpayer. Of course, that does not attach to defined-contribution schemes, which is why it is so important that they continue to benefit from the highest-quality regulation. I and my colleague the pensions Minister remain very committed to that and will continue to work with TPR and the FCA to ensure that that remains the case.

Stephen Hammond: I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Like my hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire (Harriett Baldwin), I warmly welcome the work that my hon. Friends on the Front Bench have done. The Mansion House compact is a huge step forward, but does my hon. Friend the Minister agree that getting the Kent investment review reforms right, particularly on unbundling, will also help us to have high-quality research, enabling better decisions and more investment into high-quality firms?

Andrew Griffith: My hon. Friend, who knows so much about this topic and has engaged so lucidly on it, is absolutely right about the importance of investment research. It provides access to markets, makes our UK stock exchanges an attractive international venue, narrows spreads and drives fair valuations for investors and companies seeking investment. This is one example of where we inherited a European fact pattern that was not quite right for the UK. I look forward to pensioners, investors, savers and companies benefiting from our research review.

Rosie Winterton: I call the Chair of the Work and Pensions Committee.

Stephen Timms: Defined-benefit pension funds have long been under pressure to invest in Government gilts rather than the productive economy, so I welcome the change of direction that the Minister has announced. He has indicated how much extra pension fund investment will go into high-growth companies in future. Will he indicate what share of that he expects to go into UK high-growth firms rather than overseas? He has indicated, I think, a replacement for the current charge caps on pension funds, with a wider value-for-money assessment, but can he indicate when we are likely to see the detail on what exactly he and the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Laura Trott), have in mind for that?

Andrew Griffith: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his contributions on how we can deliver the best pensions for long-term savers. There are no estimates for the share of the UK. We are mobilising an additional £50 billion of assets over time. That is evolution, not revolution. We would expect—and it is the job of this Government—to present that investment capital with a wave of attractive options across some of the fastest-growing sectors, as the Prime Minister and Chancellor have laid out, and to remove frictions and obstacles as people seek to invest in the UK, creating a conducive environment for that investment but falling short of mandating it, in the knowledge that the allocation to international investments for some of our actively managed schemes already exceeds that of other comparable companies. On the charge cap, we are this morning publishing a consultation on the new value for money framework. Clearly, we want to continue ensuring that pensioners benefit from fair charges, but also that that does not come at the expense of the underlying performance that they receive.

John Baron: I welcome this set of measures, particularly the ending of the packaged retail and insurance-based investment products regime and the introduction of the Mansion House compact, on which some of us have lobbied the Government. I will share two key concerns with the Minister. On fintech and early-stage businesses, we have a problem in this country because the pension fund industry has divested itself of UK equities, to the detriment of the London stock exchange and, ultimately, of financial services generally. It troubles me that that 5% is not focused on early-stage start-ups in the UK, unlike many other domestic pension funds, which do support their own. More generally, a bigger piece of the jigsaw is missing in my view. Pension funds have generally divested themselves of UK equities to such a great extent—some estimates suggest a 90% reduction since 2000—that we need to see more encouragement by Government to get the pension funds to use their wealth by putting it into UK equities for the betterment of the UK economy. After all, they do benefit from tax breaks.

Andrew Griffith: I thank my hon. Friend for his, as ever, apposite points. That encouragement is exactly what the proposals are all about: working voluntarily with the sector and encouraging it to lean in. I want people to see 5% as a potential floor, not a ceiling. Many will seek to go much further forward. The broad objective of the Government is to provide good access to capital at every stage of a Government’s life, whether it is our support for the seed enterprise investment scheme, the enterprise investment scheme or the venture capital trust; the expansion of the pool of individual investors who are able to invest directly in the stock market; and some of the opportunities that he talked about, all the way through to ensuring that our listed and private capital markets work extremely well. That is the objective of the reforms.

Rosie Winterton: I call the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee.

Meg Hillier: I draw the House’s attention to the fact that I am a trustee of the parliamentary contributory  pension fund. Forgive me if I am a little sceptical about Government involvement in pension funds. We have seen how the annual and lifetime allowances, announced at the Dispatch Box by a former Chancellor, have played out. It was also this Government who took us through McCloud in the public sector. The Minister said that the average earner who starts saving at 18 could increase the size of their pension pot by 12% over their career. Can he give the House examples of the assumptions behind that figure, and will he publish the modelling behind it?

Andrew Griffith: The Government Actuary’s Department is the source of those figures, which we published this morning—I draw the hon. Lady’s attention to that fact. Clearly, there are a number of assumptions within that. I do not think it is right to be sceptical. These are reforms that have been formed with wide consultation, including from across the House. I hope that we can form a growing consensus so that the industry receives a signal from this place that it is ultimately time to stop talking and to get on with investing. That is the outcome that we seek.

Robbie Moore: I welcome the statement, particularly the aim to unlock assets in the local government pension scheme through an acceleration of pooling with the aim of doubling existing investments in private equity to 10%, which could unlock £25 billion by 2030. Does the Economic Secretary agree that the reforms are a welcome step to improve our growth prospects and boost investments?

Andrew Griffith: I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. The local government pension scheme is a huge opportunity for this country. In many cases, it is already very progressive. It is investing in local opportunities and allocating its capital to the sort of private growth assets that we wish to seek. With £365 billion under management, an increased rate of progress towards asset pooling, which, as the Government have made clear, should attract at least £50 billion, will provide the scale to invest well on behalf of beneficiaries. That is a great opportunity for us all.

Sarah Olney: The number of companies listed on the London stock exchange has plummeted to such an extent that the market value of Apple is now greater than the entire FTSE 100. Recently, Cambridge-based chip giant Arm decided to list in New York rather than in London. Does the Minister think that the Mansion House compact will reverse the trend of British-based companies deciding to list elsewhere?

Andrew Griffith: Yes.

Desmond Swayne: This is an excellent package, but one way to ensure that investment flows to productive enterprise is to prevent it from being crowded out by growing Government debt, isn’t it?

Andrew Griffith: Our objectives are threefold in that respect: to bear down on inflation; to reduce Government debt, with the benefits that my right hon. Friend seeks; and to grow the economy. These are long-term plans and ambitious programmes, and ultimately, the acid test will be how we can grow our economy.

Nick Smith: The Minister says that he wants the “best possible outcomes” for pension savers. The pensions dashboard, which is designed to help pensioners understand their pension’s performance, was promised by Chancellor George Osborne, but it is still delayed. When will the pensions dashboard be delivered to support UK pensioners?

Andrew Griffith: My hon. Friend the Minister for pensions is proceeding at pace to deliver that important element in people’s ability to access the most information. It is just one component. We want people to have good pension choices and to understand the ways that investments are being made. The hon. Gentleman will understand, because we have engaged in the past about pensioners not necessarily having had the best information available to them in a regulated way, that it is better to be right in this case than to be fast.

Nickie Aiken: I was delighted to attend the Mansion House dinner last night as the Member of Parliament representing the City of London and to listen to excellent speeches by the Lord Mayor and the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Does the Minister agree that the Mansion House compact will do much to secure the City of London’s position as a global powerhouse in the financial services sector and will also create more jobs across the country?

Andrew Griffith: My hon. Friend, who knows so much and speaks so lucidly for Cities of London and Westminster, is absolutely right. These are a bold and ambitious set of reforms. They will not just help communities across the whole of the United Kingdom—I never fail to remind the House that financial services touch almost every constituency—but continue to underwrite the strong and leading position of the City of London, which she so ably represents.

Bill Esterson: It is always fascinating to hear Ministers justifying their failure over the last 13 years. The Minister would do well to recognise that business investment is at a record low in this country. One way to address the record low in business investment is to listen to the professional services sector, which says that a mutual recognition agreement with the EU would increase that performance and contribution. Why have the Government made no progress on that mutual recognition agreement?

Andrew Griffith: I am enormously proud of the fact that we have recently reached agreement with all the member nations of the European Union on the memorandum of understanding in respect of financial services. That joins a number of such agreements, all of which have the objective of seeking access to as many of the growing markets in the world as possible for our financial and professional services. Only last week I met my opposite number, the German deputy Finance Minister, and next week I will be meeting the Luxembourg Finance Minister.

Christopher Chope: By how much will today’s announcement reduce the burden of regulation on UK business? I ask that because the Government promised that there would be no net increase in the burden of regulation on business during this Parliament, but so far we are £14.3 billion in the wrong direction.

Andrew Griffith: My hon. Friend may wish to ask that question in due course. With respect to the Secretary of State for Business and Trade, I can only speak for the financial services sector. Today we are publishing documents to repeal 100 elements of retained EU law. That builds on reforms we already had in train, such as the prospectus directive. I can certainly give him my confidence and assurance that we are significantly lightening the burden of regulation, but more importantly, making it appropriate for the unique fact pattern of the UK as an open, innovative global market.

Debbie Abrahams: The Minister will be aware that the Bank of England had to intervene in the gilt market after the disastrous mini-Budget last September to restore market functioning, when sharp and rapid rises in gilt yields led to widespread selling of gilts by pension schemes’ liability-driven investment arrangements. We all recognise that we need to do more to ensure that our pensions—especially our defined-contribution schemes—are better. My question is about the risk. What risk assessment has been made of this proposed reform, particularly in terms of where the burden of risk falls?

Andrew Griffith: We have published today a consultation, and I hope the hon. Lady will feel that she can raise points during that. My hon. Friend the Minister responsible for pensions will always be happy to undertake engagement with the sector. Needless to say, we believe that we have the right balance of risk. The hon. Lady talks about volatility in the gilt market. That is one of the reasons we are so focused on not making unfunded spending commitments. The last thing that pensioners or the wider economy need is Labour’s £28 billion unfunded spending plans.

Richard Fuller: I welcome the announcement of these reforms, but will the Chancellor and the Minister look further at two consequential areas? First, to make the most of the newly available capital, this country needs to attract the world’s best innovators, insurgents and entrepreneurs. The Labour party has already said that it does not want them here and will change tax policy to make sure they look to other countries. This Government need to come forward with measures that say, “We want the best and the brightest to come to the UK.”
Secondly, to make the most of these reforms, we need to ensure that our businesses can work speedily and with clarity. That means that regulators need to focus on what our companies are doing with these reforms, as well as protecting customers and consumers. Will my hon. Friend look at what further measures we can take on regulatory reform?

Andrew Griffith: The work of regulatory reform to make this country globally competitive and an attractive place to invest is never done, as my hon. Friend knows. He will also know that we are seeing right now the fruits of the Prime Minister’s vision and strategy, with firms such as OpenAI and Andreessen Horowitz—two of the leading technology firms changing our world—both choosing in recent weeks the United Kingdom out of the entire rest of the world as the place to do business.

Jonathan Edwards: Further to the question from the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Nick Smith), what assurances can  the Minister give that when the pensions dashboard is launched, it will be mandatory for all providers to participate in it and will not be done on a voluntary basis, to avoid it being what one analyst described as “half-baked”?

Andrew Griffith: The hon. Member is quite right: it will be mandatory for all providers. That will be underwritten by legislation. The focus is to ensure that it is a usable, well regulated and well understood user experience for members.

Philip Hollobone: Over the last decade, thanks to automatic pension enrolment, an extra 10 million people have been able to save more for their retirement, but until now, due to investment restrictions, those returns have been limited. What my constituents want to know is, would the reforms announced today have been possible without Brexit, and how much better off will they be when it comes to retirement?

Andrew Griffith: I hope that my hon. Friend can reassure the constituents he so diligently represents that on average, as supported by the Government Actuary’s Department, if they started their working life now under the new assumptions about the compact, they could be up to £1,000 a year better off in retirement. That is a meaningful difference. At the end of the day, this is about making people’s money work better for them and harder for them and delivering them better outcomes. He is also right to observe that our ambitious programme of regulatory reforms, although it will never be divergence for divergence’s sake, could not have been achieved if it were not for the ability of this place to set the corpus of regulations under which financial services operate.

Nigel Mills: I welcome the Mansion House compact and the focus on auto-enrolment pensions delivering a better pension for their scheme members, but if the Minister looks at the websites of the firms that have signed up to his compact, he will see that they are all still marketing themselves as being cheap and simple for employers, rather than the best quality and best return for savers. What more can we do to give individual members a choice of which scheme they are auto-enrolled in? Will he look at a clearing house scheme, under which it would be individual employees who choose where their pension savings go, not their employer a few years ago based on what was easy and cheap?

Andrew Griffith: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to talk about the need for that culture to change, moving away from an excess focus on cost to the detriment of performance—that is what these reforms will achieve over time. He is also right to talk about giving agency to individual long-term savers over time. Making sure that we have that usable journey for pensioners that delivers across the whole of their life is something that my colleague, the pensions Minister, is passionate about.

Points of Order

Lloyd Russell-Moyle: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have written to the Treasury twice without a substantive reply about Sea Lanes, the first new public lido opened in my constituency in 30 years, and the National Open Water Swimming Centre. They are owed a VAT rebate of over £170,000, which was due back on 19 April. I am sure that Government Front Benchers understand the importance to new businesses of getting speedy rebates.
His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs has no hotline for MPs to ring up. If our question is on VAT matters, we have to ring up the public line, and every 48 hours, Sea Lanes has to reauthorise my office to speak on its behalf. On 25 June, we were told that there was nothing delaying that payment, yet three weeks later, no payment has been received. Madam Deputy Speaker, as there is no hotline and HMRC has not responded to my letters, could you advise me how best to pursue this matter with the Treasury?

Rosie Winterton: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. From what he has said, I can understand his concern. Miraculously, he has managed to raise his point of order when he has a Treasury Minister right in front of him, and I have a feeling that Ministers may well take back his comments.

Andrew Griffith: indicated assent.

Rosie Winterton: The Minister is nodding in agreement, so I think the hon. Gentleman has succeeded in raising his case effectively. We will leave it at that.

Crispin Blunt: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I distinctly remember that during last week’s Second Reading of the Economic Activity of Public Bodies (Overseas Matters) Bill, when the Communities Secretary was asked in an intervention whether there had been any advice against the Bill from diplomatic posts, he replied that he was not aware—that he knew of no such advice. It has now become clear that a senior official in the Foreign Secretary’s own office sent a letter to No. 10 expressing such concerns about the consequences of the Bill. I wonder whether, Madam Deputy Speaker, you have had any notice that the Foreign Secretary intends to correct the record, or whether he will rely on the fact that the Foreign Secretary’s office is not a diplomatic post in any formal sense.

Rosie Winterton: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. He did not give me notice of it, so I have not been able to get any other information. There were two parts to his point of order: first, that the Foreign Secretary answered by saying that he was not aware, and then that there had been no such representations. The hon. Gentleman has raised the issue; if any correction is necessary, I am sure it will be made, and I am confident that those on the Government Front Bench will pass back his comments. However, it was a little difficult to work out whether the hon. Gentleman was saying that there was no awareness, or that there had been no representations.

William Wragg: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I think my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Crispin Blunt) hon. Friend misspoke; it was the Communities Secretary.

Rosie Winterton: I am sorry—that is probably my fault. At first we had the Communities Secretary, then we had the Foreign Secretary. Whoever it is, I am sure they will be on this immediately, unless Mr Blunt wants to be more specific.

Crispin Blunt: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Communities Secretary gave the assurance to the House that he was unaware of any such advice in the context of diplomatic posts. It appears that that advice did exist, and that it came from the Foreign Secretary’s own office.

Rosie Winterton: I am sure that between those points of order, we can sort out the various channels that need to be fed back to. The hon. Gentleman has raised the issue, and I am sure it will be taken back.

Andy McDonald: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Through you, may I express my thanks to Mr Speaker for his support yesterday? There was a very unpleasant social media posting containing a threat. I can report that the gentleman concerned has unequivocally and unreservedly apologised, and has made a significant donation to the Jo Cox Foundation.

Rosie Winterton: I thank the hon. Gentleman for informing the House of that. I will certainly pass his thanks back to Mr Speaker, and I am glad to hear that there has been a satisfactory outcome.

Bill Presented

Rural Crime (Strategy) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57) Richard Foord presented a Bill to require the Secretary of State to establish a task force to produce a strategy for tackling rural crime; to require the Secretary of State to implement the strategy; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 24 November, and to be printed (Bill 348).

Bullying and Respect at Work

Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No. 23)

Rachael Maskell: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for a statutory definition of bullying at work; to make provision relating to bullying at work, including to enable claims relating to workplace bullying to be considered by an employment tribunal; to provide for a Respect at Work Code to set minimum standards for positive and respectful work environments; to give powers to the Equalities and Human Rights Commission to investigate workplaces and organisations where there is evidence of a culture of, or multiple incidents of, bullying and to take enforcement action; and for connected purposes.
I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
We all have power: how we use it matters. We can use it to encourage and elevate others, or we can use it to denigrate and destroy. For those who are harmed, there are few protections. We see it in schools and online, we see it with elder abuse, and we see it in workplaces. My Bill will break the cycle of bullying at work. It will call to account those who abuse their power, while protecting others and, for the first time, providing a legal definition of bullying at work. The TUC reports that bullying is the second biggest workplace issue. Some 29% of workers will experience workplace bullying at some point, and one in 10 has experienced it in the past six months. Academia backs those figures up. That lack of access to redress and justice explains why 53% of those who are bullied never report it. What is the point, if it exposes you further and there is no legal protection?
My Bill will not just help people at work; it will help employers. Bullying costs UK businesses £18 billion a year, and according to the Health and Safety Executive, over 17 million working days are lost each year due to work-related negative behaviours such as bullying. Sometimes bullying is corporate, embedded in the culture of an organisation. Sometimes it is peer on peer, where workers are left out, denigrated publicly or privately, and targeted or ignored. Slowly and painfully, the worker dies inside. Bullying hurts: it destroys confidence, crushes mental health and causes physical ill health. For some, the pain is so great that they simply crumble. There is lasting trauma; some never recover, and some lose their lives. The power of a human to destroy another is very real.
As a Parliament, we have failed millions of workers by not legislating. Like most MPs, I have had a constant stream of constituents seeking help, but there is no legal definition, no legal protection and no legal route to justice. Without protection, many workers will leave their employment. Without a route to an employment tribunal, people depend on the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 or a claim for constructive unfair dismissal following resigning from work. Most suffer, or leave their place of work. While my Bill seeks to promote respect at work and positive behaviours, it recognises that legislation is needed to protect workers and to have a chilling effect on negative workplace cultures for employees, workers, the bogus self-employed or office holders. As with other rewards, the tribunal service  would depend on the remedies determined by the Vento tariff, and would therefore access the compensatory award for injury to the applicant.
Twenty years ago, there was a concerted effort by Government, trade unions and employers to address bullying at work. They formed the Dignity At Work Partnership, undertaking important work to understand bullying, its causes, its effects and how to reduce incidents. Sadly, the impact did not last and its reach was limited. Labour’s late Baroness Gibson sought to legislate. Since, barristers and solicitors have been calling for a change in the law. Trade unions want their members protected.
ACAS has, within its code of practice, set out a definition. Any definition would require a subjective test—what is its impact—fettered by an objective test of the behaviours being offensive, malicious, intimidating or humiliating. As ACAS has more recently determined, this does not have to be a repeated act, but could be. Such tests provide for a robust threshold for a claim.
Bullying can be by an individual or group. It  can be organisational, as with deliberate procedural delays in grievance management—delayed to cause harm. Fundamentally, it springs from a power imbalance—positional from a manager, psychological or relational. It can be direct or through a third party, by proxy. It can be with intent or without, although remorse can be the judge of this. Often, the perpetrator will reverse the blame and those innocent of bullying are accused of being a perpetrator. This can be the worst bullying of all—being publicly labelled by the very people who bully while they play victim themselves.
Currently, employment tribunals only hear cases of constructive unfair dismissal. We know that the time and thresholds for such claims are high, the applicant first having to resign, and they would also be required to have two years of employment. Civil courts may further be used to handle a personal injury claim. While employers have an implied duty to provide a safe working environment, the absence of legislation makes this difficult to enforce or address harm. Many workplaces have policies, but ultimate restitution is yet to sit with the tribunal, since bullying is not a legal concept, while discrimination and harassment rightly are.
For those with a protected characteristic, section 26 of the Equality Act 2010 provides a route to seek remedy. For someone who does not qualify under the Equality Act, there is no legal protection. However, with legislation, a dismissal arising from bullying could seek remedy, under the Employment Rights Act 1996, as an automatically unfair dismissal. The power of that approach is that, once the threshold tests have been met, the burden of proof moves to the employer to demonstrate that the reason for the resignation of the employee was or was not due to their failure to protect the individual from the perpetrator.
My Bill follows the tradition of harassment, but extends it to those without a protected characteristic. Like harassment, it will have a six-month limitation to bring a claim. My Bill seeks to extend the ACAS code of practice to promote positive workplace behaviours. Clearly, the failure of an employer to instil this could see a compensatory award raised, but, moreover, also see positive change ensue at work.
A perpetrator of bullying often targets more than one individual. My Bill empowers employers to challenge and bring about change. Failing to would enable the tribunal to compel an employer to abide by the code, securing better workplace safety. Should the perpetrator continue to bully, the code assists employers to manage the situation through conduct procedures and, where necessary, escalate a case to gross misconduct. However, it must be recognised that some places of work have an endemic bullying culture. I have therefore set out a role for reporting, investigation and enforcement in line with the management of environments where discrimination occurs.
In extending the role and powers of the Equality and Human Rights Commission to investigate and report, and to issue enforcement notices, workplace cultures will change. We need only look at some recent reports on the NHS to recognise failure, but we are acutely aware that we need to get our own House in order. Indeed, political parties would not be exempt from my legislation. This will clean up workplaces and clean up politics. The UK is behind the curve. Jurisdictions from Canada to Australia, Scandinavia to many across Europe have well established law in this field.
It is my experience that all can be subject to the destructive forces of bullying and all must receive protection under the law. In bringing forward this legislation, I hope that we can change the culture of work—for workers to no longer fear a day in the office, on a ward or even in this Parliament, but instead for them to know that the law is on their side, justice is protecting them and they can receive the very help they need. We have an obligation to protect people at work, and my Bill passing its First Reading today is the first step.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Rachael Maskell, Andy McDonald, Dawn Butler, John McDonnell, Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck, Ian Lavery, Wera Hobhouse, Ian Mearns, Bell Ribeiro-Addy, Barry Gardiner, Caroline Lucas and Andrew Jones present the Bill.
Rachael Maskell accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 24 November, and to be printed (Bill 349).

Illegal Migration Bill  (Programme) (No. 2)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),
That the following provisions shall apply to the Illegal Migration Bill for the purpose of supplementing the Order of 13 March 2023 (Illegal Migration Bill: Programme):

Consideration of Lords Amendments

(1) Proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at 5.00pm at today’s sitting.
(2) The Lords Amendments shall be considered in the following order: 1, 2, 6 to 9, 12, 20, 22, 23, 30 to 67, 73, 74, 90, 93, 95, 102 to 104, 107, 3 to 5, 10, 11, 13 to 19, 21, 24 to 29, 68 to 72, 75 to 89, 91, 92, 94, 96 to 101, 105, 106 and 108 to 114.

Subsequent stages

(3) Any further Message from the Lords may be considered forthwith without any Question being put.
(4) Proceedings on the first of any further Messages from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion two hours after their commencement.
(5) Proceedings on any other further Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.—(Robert Largan.)
Question agreed to.

Illegal Migration Bill

Consideration of Lords amendments

Clause 1 - Introduction

1.37 pm

Robert Jenrick: I beg to move, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 1.

Nigel Evans: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Lords amendments 2, 6 to 9, 12, 20 and 22, Government motions to disagree and Government amendments (a) to (o) in lieu of Lords amendments 2, 12, 20 and 22.
Lords amendments 23 and 30, and Government motions to disagree.
Lords amendments 31 to 36, Government motions to disagree and Government amendments (a) and (b) in lieu of Lords amendments 31, 35 and 36.
Lords amendments 37 and 38, Government motions to disagree and Government amendments (a) to (e) in lieu of Lords amendments 37 and 38.
Lords amendments 39 to 67, and Government motions to disagree.
Lords amendments 73 and 74, Government motions to disagree and Government amendment (a) in lieu of Lords amendments 73 and 74.
Lords amendment 90, Government motion to disagree and Government amendments (a) to (c) to the words so restored to the Bill.
Lords amendment 93, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendment 95, Government motion to disagree and Government amendments (a) and (b) in lieu.
Lords amendments 102 to 104 and 107, and Government motions to disagree.
Lords amendments 3 to 5, 10, 11, 13 to 19, 21, 24 to 29, 68 to 72, 75 to 89, 91, 92, 94, 96 to 101, 105, 106 and 108 to 114.

Robert Jenrick: This Bill is vital to stopping the boats and preventing the dangerous, illegal and unnecessary journeys across the channel. The Bill as passed by this House made it unambiguously clear to illegal migrants and people smugglers alike that, if they come to this country by unlawful means, they will not be able to stay. Instead, they will be detained and swiftly removed either to their home country or to a safe third country.
The Government brought forward a number of amendments in the Lords to enhance the Bill. These are largely of a technical nature, so I will not detain the House by setting these out now. Instead, I will confine my remarks to the non-Government amendments passed by the other place. I am grateful to the House of Lords for undertaking its proper role as a revising Chamber. Some of the changes made by the other place are, however, little short of wrecking amendments, and are not ones that the Government can support. There are a few honourable exceptions and I will deal with those first.

Aaron Bell: As the Minister says, most of the amendments we are going to be debating and voting on later are wrecking amendments. Does he agree that none of these amendments addresses the fundamental need to address the actual incentives for people to cross the channel? That is what the Bill does and these amendments take that away.

Robert Jenrick: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I would direct Members to the speech made in the other place by Lord Clarke. He said, very powerfully, that, as a former Home Secretary and long-standing Member of this House, and as someone who is interested in and knowledgeable about this issue, he sat through many hours of debate and did not hear, from any of the critics of the Bill, a single credible alternative to the Government’s approach. If hon. Members follow that logic, they need to get behind the Government and support them in delivering this approach.
Another point that Lord Clarke made, which I agree with, was that, if we fail to tackle this issue—if we dismiss the concerns of members of the public—we will see very serious consequences in the years ahead, with a fragmentation of community cohesion and a weakening of the successful multi-ethnic democracy that all of us, on both sides of the House, are proud of and want to see sustained for future generations.

Dawn Butler: The Minister says that the other place put forward wrecking amendments, but is it not true that the other place proposed amendments that ensure that we honour treaties, respect our judiciary and ensure that the Home Office is acting within the law?

Robert Jenrick: I do not agree with that. There are a few important exceptions, which I will come on to. I hope that, in my remarks and in answering any questions, I will reassure the hon. Lady that, on the points of substance made by those who want to see the Bill proceed and the issue tackled, the Government are making the right changes to the Bill.

Joanna Cherry: The Minister says that no one has proposed a credible alternative, but four Lords amendments do. Lords amendment 102 proposes a
“Duty to establish safe and legal routes”.
Lords amendment 103 would amend the Crime and Courts Act 2013 to confer on the National Crime Agency specific functions to tackle cross-channel organised crime. And under Lords amendments 104 and 107, the Government would set up a 10-year strategy on refugees and human trafficking, working with foreign Governments. Do those four amendments not constitute a credible alternative?

Robert Jenrick: As it happens, I will come to each of those points later in my speech, if the hon. and learned Lady does not mind, but in each case, we are already doing what she asks us to do. The Bill has a specific provision in respect of safe and legal routes and, when we had this debate in this House previously, we agreed further to set out the details of that. As for the National Crime Agency, its officers who work on organised immigration crime—I met them in recent weeks in  Belgium, France, Italy, Tunisia and Libya—would be very surprised to hear that the agency does not have the authority to act on organised immigration crime because those in some cases very brave men and women are doing that work every single day on our behalf already.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Robert Jenrick: Let me make a small amount of progress and then I will give way to the hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams).
I turn to the first issue of substance, which is Lords amendment 2. That would provide that the duty to make arrangements for removal applied to persons who entered illegally from the date of commencement of clause 2, rather than on or after 7 March 2023, as originally provided for in the Bill.
We acknowledge the position advanced by some in the other place and in this House about the retrospective effect of the Bill, but these Lords amendments go too far in resetting the clock. The closer we get to commencement of the Bill, the greater the risk that organised criminals and people smugglers will seek to exploit that, and we will see an increase in crossings as the deadline looms, which would only put more people at risk.
To guard against that, we have brought forward amendments in lieu to move the application of the duty from 7 March to the date of Royal Assent. The date of 7 March, however, would continue to apply for the purpose of the Secretary of State’s power to provide accommodation for unaccompanied children and for the purposes of the bans on re-entry, settlement and citizenship. That Government amendment in lieu has a particular advantage with respect to the concerns about modern slavery expressed by my right hon. Friends the Members for Maidenhead (Mrs May) and for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith), but I will come to that in a moment.

Debbie Abrahams: Can the Minister tell me how many Afghan women have been able to avail themselves of the Afghan citizens resettlement scheme phase 3 programme? That is the Government’s position on a safe and legal route. As we have understood from various Westminster Hall debates, we are looking at a handful in phase 3. Everything else refers to what has happened in 2021. I also draw his attention to the recent horrific drownings off Greece. This included a number of Afghan nationals and people from Pakistan-administered Kashmir. What really is the point of these ineffective, supposed safe routes?

Robert Jenrick: The hon. Lady and I share the same objective: to ensure that the schemes that the Government have established are operationalised as quickly as possible, so that people who are eligible—perhaps including the women she is in contact with—can come to the United Kingdom, settle here and find sanctuary. It is incredibly important that the UK is a beacon in the world for resettlement schemes. We have already supported more than 20,000 people under the Afghan relocations and assistance policy and the ACRS to come to the United Kingdom. I appreciate her point that the numbers in recent months have been lower than she or we would  like. One reason is that there is so little capacity in the UK today to properly house individuals, and one explanation for that is that the sheer number of individuals entering the country illegally on small boats has placed an intolerable pressure on our social housing and the contingency accommodation that we have available. If we are to bring further individuals to the UK—as we want to do and are continuing to do—they risk being housed in hotels, which is an unacceptable way to house vulnerable people and, in particular, families.

Debbie Abrahams: The Minister is being generous with his time. We in the all-party parliamentary group on Afghan women and girls have hundreds of civilians who would like a “homes for Afghans” scheme. These people are waiting and have already volunteered. This scheme is ready and it is equivalent to the Homes for Ukraine scheme, so I urge the Government to take us up on it and make sure that the supposed safe routes are actual safe routes.

Robert Jenrick: I strongly endorse the hon. Lady’s comments. The Homes for Ukraine scheme has been superb and we should all be proud of it—I took part in it at one point. If it is possible to create a comparable scheme for Afghans, we should consider that. I know that the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, who has responsibility for that issue, is considering it.
On the broader point about resettlement, the UK has a strong record in this regard. Of course, we would all like to go further, but since 2015 we have welcomed 550,000 people to this country on humanitarian grounds, mostly on resettlement schemes. We are one of the world’s leading countries for such schemes.

Bill Cash: While we are on the question of dates, does the Minister have any idea when the Supreme Court may consider and conclude its judgment? That is relevant not only to the question of the Bill’s progress, but to the question of the Parliament Act, in case that were to be needed.

Robert Jenrick: It is for the Court to determine, in the first instance, whether it intends to take up the appeal and at what time it will be heard. I can only point my hon. Friend to the final paragraph in the summary judgment from the Court of Appeal, which expressed the view of the three judges that this is a matter of great urgency and that it needs to be handled expeditiously. I hope that the Supreme Court, if it chooses to hear our appeal, does so swiftly, but that is a matter for the Supreme Court.

Gavin Robinson: Will the Minister give way?

Robert Jenrick: I will, and then I should make some progress.

Gavin Robinson: The Minister will know that, from his perspective, I had a difficult approach to the Bill on Second Reading. When he embarked on addressing Lords amendment 2, he said he would now address the first Lords amendment of substance, yet Lords amendment 1 deals with our international obligations. We had the curious start to this Bill that it could not have a full declaration on the front of it about compatibility with  some of those international obligations. Perhaps it was just a turn of phrase, but it would be incredibly helpful if the Minister not only addressed Lords amendment 1 and the Government’s approach to international legal obligations but outlined exactly what is contained within Lords amendment 1 that the Government take issue with.

Robert Jenrick: I will come back to that issue later in my remarks, but let me be clear, if further reassurance is required, that the Government take our international law obligations extremely seriously. We believe that all the matters outlined in the Bill are within our international legal obligations, and should the Bill or any aspect of it be legally challenged, we will contest that vigorously to defend the position we have set out.
I point the hon. Gentleman to one important element of the recent judgment in the Court of Appeal, which was on this question: if a state such as the United Kingdom used another state and entered into a partnership, such as we have with Rwanda, for the purposes of asylum, would that be compatible with the refugee convention? I point out that all three judges agreed that that was compatible with the refugee convention. On arguably the central international law issue at stake, the Court of Appeal was clear that the Government’s approach is compatible with international law.

Andy McDonald: The Minister has made that commitment about the refugee convention, but Lords amendment 1 says that the Bill should be read so as not to conflict with the European convention on human rights, the refugee convention and the conventions on statelessness, the rights of the child and anti-trafficking. Why are the Government so opposed to that clarification and that clear statement on the face of the Bill, if we are the beacon and an adherent to international obligations and law?

Robert Jenrick: It is not normal practice to state that on the face of the Bill. It goes without saying that the Government obey our international obligations, as we do with all pieces of legislation.

Joanna Cherry: Will the Minister give way?

Robert Jenrick: I will make some progress, because I appreciate that this is a relatively short debate. If the hon. and learned Lady does not mind, there are other questions I need to address.
Detention has attracted a great deal of interest from Members from all parts of the House, as indeed it did in the other place. Detention is a necessary part of the scheme provided for in the Bill. The duty on the Home Secretary to make arrangements for removal is accompanied by strong detention powers. We know from experience that once a person is released from detention, the prospects of being able to effect removal are significantly reduced, because they typically abscond. That is why the Bill restricts, but does not exclude, judicial challenges within the first 28 days of detention. That is so that illegal migrants can be processed and removed, rather than simply absconding on arrival. The powers cover family groups the same as others, so as to not provide a perverse incentive for people smugglers and migrants to co-opt unaccompanied children into bogus family groups to avoid detention, putting children at risk in the process.
Lords amendments 31 and 35 to 38 seek to restore the existing 24-hour limit on the detention of unaccompanied children and the 72-hour limit on the detention of pregnant women. I recognise that there are particular sensitivities around the detention of those cohorts, and we debated those at some length in earlier proceedings in this House. Recognising the health concerns around the detention of pregnant women and the particular vulnerability of unaccompanied children, we have brought forward amendments in lieu that maintain the existing 72-hour limit, extendable up to a week with ministerial authorisation, on the detention of pregnant women, and that enable the first-tier tribunal to consider granting immigration bail after eight days for unaccompanied children, rather than the 28 days provided for in the Bill. A number of Members of this House spoke out on the issue of pregnant women, but I pay particular tribute to my noble Friend Baroness Sugg for campaigning in the other place.

Natalie Elphicke: My right hon. Friend knows at first hand the impact this issue has on Dover and Kent—on our schools and other important local services. Given the proposed continuation of special measures for unaccompanied young people and now pregnant women, will he confirm that he will meet me and Kent colleagues to discuss the impact of these proposals, particularly bearing in mind the poor state of our local maternity services and the incredible pressure already being placed on our communities?

Robert Jenrick: I would be pleased to meet my hon. Friend, as I have in the past. She knows that I have met local authority leaders in Kent on a number of occasions. I want to do everything I can to support them. Historically, they have borne a high burden as a result of their location adjacent to the points of entry, and that has placed some public services in Kent under a great deal of pressure. In the past 12 months, we have created the national scheme to ensure that unaccompanied children are moved across the country and that all local authorities play an equitable part in supporting them. We have also provided substantial financial incentives to local authorities to help them play their fair part.
I appreciate that nothing is ever as simple as that. Developing further capacity with local authority children’s homes or foster carers takes time, but I hope that the measures we have put in place will make a noticeable difference. Prior to the recent seasonal increase in individuals crossing the channel, we had successfully managed to clear all the UASC—unaccompanied asylum-seeking children—hotels that the Home Office had utilised, and I hope we can keep reliance upon them to an absolute minimum this summer and autumn.
In the case of unaccompanied children, the change I have just described will apply where an unaccompanied child is detained for the purpose of removal, and it aligns with the eight-day period for making a suspensive claim. That approach will ensure that we can continue to detain a person whom we suspect to be an adult, but who claims to be a child, pending the outcome of an age assessment.

Stuart McDonald: It is important for the Chamber  to note that this is not really a concession; it is not even a time limit on the detention of children. It is the ability to apply for bail, as I understand it, after eight days. The person has to be aware of their rights and have access to the ability to challenge detention. It also applies only to a small cohort of children; the vast majority of children detained under the Bill will not have access to this process at all.

Robert Jenrick: Respectfully, the hon. Gentleman has misunderstood what we are proposing. If a child who is a genuine child and not subject to age assessment arrives unaccompanied in the United Kingdom, they will be swiftly processed. They will then be sent out into the local authority care system as quickly as possible, until they turn 18. We will seek to remove unaccompanied children in two circumstances, as I set out when we last debated this in the House. The first is where we, the Home Office, manage to reunite them with parents in other countries, as we do in a small number of cases today. The second is where we, the Home Office, manage to return them to their home country, which is a safe country, and in most cases into the care of social services immediately upon arrival. Again, that happens already in a small number of cases. There is no intention to change present practice. We are taking the power to detain, if required, a young person in that situation for up to eight days, housed in age-appropriate accommodation to enable us to make that removal effective.

Vicky Ford: rose—

John Hayes: rose—

Robert Jenrick: If I may, I will give way in the first instance to my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford.

Vicky Ford: I am listening closely to what my right hon. Friend is saying, and I am thinking in particular about arrivals as well as leavers. Can he confirm that children who are clearly children will be placed in child-appropriate accommodation? Will all those who may or may not be children have appropriate safeguarding? If that is the case, when will we see that in writing?

Robert Jenrick: I am grateful for my right hon. Friend’s interest in the Bill. She and I come at this with exactly the same concern: to protect unaccompanied children. Any genuine child who comes into the United Kingdom will be swiftly taken into the local authority care system, which she is familiar with thanks to her former work as children’s Minister. To the extent that that child is in the detained estate, they will be housed only in age-appropriate accommodation.

Vicky Ford: rose—

Robert Jenrick: I will set out in a moment how that age-appropriate accommodation is determined in law today. I give way to my right hon. Friend one more time.

Vicky Ford: To dig deeper into that, the Minister has suggested that a child may be detained on arrival, which is not currently the case, but that if that happened, that would be in child-appropriate accommodation.

Robert Jenrick: That is correct. The law today is that a child can be detained for eight days for the purpose of examination—that is not routinely done by the Home Office. Today, a child is detained for 24 hours or less and, whether for 24 hours or, if the Home Office chose to make use of the power, for eight days, they are detained only in age-appropriate accommodation. It would be unlawful to house an under-18 in accommodation that did not meet the standard set out in law. I will come on in a moment to describe that standard.

John Hayes: I am immensely grateful to my right hon. Friend for all the work he has done on the Bill and these amendments. He will understand that the matters he is discussing bring age verification into sharp focus. As he knows, I tabled an amendment on that, which the Government ultimately re-presented as an amendment of their own. Will he confirm that age verification measures will be obligatory and comprehensive so that we do not any longer get the nonsense of people pretending to be children in order to game the system?

Robert Jenrick: My right hon. Friend is right. We take age assessment extremely seriously. As he knows, there are some young adults and individuals who abuse the system. Indeed, some are not so young—as I understand it, the oldest individual we have encountered who posed as a child was subsequently found to be 41 years of age. That is wrong as a matter of principle, and it is also a serious safeguarding risk to genuine children and all the caring people who are involved in supporting them, whether they be foster carers, teachers or members of the general public. We therefore have to take the issue seriously. That is why the Bill retains the power to detain an individual who is subject to age assessment for up to 28 days. During that period, the Home Office or local authorities would conduct age assessment. Today, that is done through the Merton system, which is proving to take longer than we would like, but which we want to be conducted within 28 days.
We are now taking advantage of the powers taken through the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 to begin to roll out scientific forms of age assessment. That will happen over the course of this year. Initially, it will happen concurrently with the Merton assessment. We want to ensure that that system is demonstrated to be robust and as swift as possible. I hope that hon. Members on both sides of the House will unite in common agreement that it is important that we weed out cases of abuse, because they pose such a risk. I am afraid that we have seen some very tragic instances such as the murder that occurred in Bournemouth at the behest of somebody who had posed as a child. The state has to do everything in its power to prevent that from happening again.

Stuart McDonald: Will the Minister give way?

Robert Jenrick: If I may make some more progress, I will happily come to the hon. Gentleman later. I want to conclude the point that I was making to my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Vicky Ford) on the detention periods and standard of accommodation, because that is important. I assure her, and indeed my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton), who has also taken an interest in the issue, that we will seek to detain unaccompanied children for the shortest possible period. Where there is no dispute that someone is under 18, they will be transferred  to the local authority accommodation estate as quickly as possible. Where there is doubt about whether a person is indeed under 18 as they claim to be, they will be treated as a child while an age assessment is undertaken. Such a person will be detained in age-appropriate accommodation, as the law already provides. That is set out in the Detention Centre Rules 2001 made under section 153 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. Rule 11 provides that:
“Detained persons aged under 18 and families will be provided with accommodation suitable to their needs.”
If no such accommodation is available, they will not be detained and instead will be transferred to a local authority as soon as possible. I hope that provides my right hon. Friend with the assurance she seeks.

Tim Loughton: The Minister quoted the Detention Centre Rules 2001, which are of course 22 years old. Rule 11 says:
“Detained persons aged under 18 and families will be provided with accommodation suitable to their needs.”
Although there is a checklist of about 65 things, virtually all of them are about fabric, freedom to practise religion and access to personal hygiene. Which of the rules contains support services that are relevant and age-appropriate to children?

Robert Jenrick: The rules are related to 2001, as my hon. Friend says, but as I understand it they have been updated since then. They have also been tested on a number of occasions in the courts, and the Home Office takes seriously its responsibility to live up to them. It would be unlawful if we were to accommodate an under-18 inappropriately. If I may, I will read out the other limbs of rule 11, entitled “Families and minors”. They are, first:
“Detained family members shall be entitled to enjoy family life at the detention centre save to the extent necessary in the interests of security and safety.
Secondly:
“Detained persons aged under 18 and families will be provided with accommodation suitable to their needs.”
Thirdly:
“Everything reasonably necessary for detained persons’ protection, safety and well-being and the maintenance and care of infants and children shall be provided.”
That, I think, is a comprehensive set of principles. It is one that has stood the test of time over the last 22 years. If it needed to be strengthened, of course we will do so, but I hope that my hon. Friend will take my strong assurance from the Dispatch Box that that is the standard of accommodation in which we intend to house anyone who is a minor. If that accommodation were not available, we would not house those individuals in detained accommodation at all.

Tim Loughton: Will the Minister give way again?

Robert Jenrick: I will give way one last time.

Tim Loughton: The Minister is being generous. I will elaborate on this point if I am lucky enough to catch your eye, Mr Deputy Speaker. Where in those 65 rules are relevant child-appropriate support services such as social workers, child psychologists and others that would be necessary mentioned? Nothing that he has described  guarantees that children will be in age-appropriate accommodation that has age-appropriate care. That is the point.

Robert Jenrick: I am happy to write to my hon. Friend detailing all the support that would be available. The point that I am making is that this is the existing law, and it has existed for more than 20 years. Nothing in the Bill changes that framework. The Home Office will rely on the existing framework that has been in place throughout the years, including when he was the children’s Minister, and it was considered satisfactory throughout that period.

Paul Bristow: I congratulate the Minister on everything he is doing on this issue, especially in relation to unaccompanied minors. Is he convinced that everything he is doing will not create a perverse incentive for evil people smugglers to push unaccompanied minors on to boats to cross the English channel? Of course, once they are here, they can bring over their family and so on. Is he convinced that we will do everything we can to stop that perverse incentive?

Robert Jenrick: The changes that we are proposing in the Government amendments in lieu strike the right balance, whereby we preserve the intention of the scheme that lies at the heart of the Bill but provide some further protections for minors. My hon. Friend is right to make the broader point that more substantial changes to the Bill, such as those envisaged by some Members of the other place, would undermine its very purpose.
In considering each and every one of the Lords amendments, we must ensure that we do not drive a coach and horses through the core deterrent effect that we are trying to achieve. Why do we want that deterrent effect? Because we do not want anyone, whether an adult or a child, crossing the channel in small boats, placing themselves in danger and being under the support and control of people smugglers and human traffickers. We must keep in mind the original purpose of the Bill, and ensure that we do not do anything to undermine that.

Hilary Benn: On age-appropriate accommodation and family life, could the Minister explain why he felt that the murals on the wall at the Kent intake unit damaged the deterrent effect of which he has just spoken? In that context, if parents are to continue to have family life with their children for the time that they are detained, will there be any chance of them having access to picture books to enable them to read to their children?

Robert Jenrick: I do not know whether the right hon. Member has been to any of the facilities, but we provide very high-quality facilities for families and children upon immediate arrival in the UK. I have made it a particular focus to ensure that we support those individuals appropriately, ensuring that conditions in those places are decent and compassionate at all times. The cohort of unaccompanied children who passed through the location that he describes last year was largely teenagers. We did not feel that the site was age-appropriate, but it contains a range of support for children and infants, including all the things that he has described. Nothing  about the decoration of sites changes the fundamentals: if someone comes to the United Kingdom, we will treat them with decency and compassion at all times.

John Martin McDonnell: I want the Minister to be explicit about the type of detention centre that we are talking about. For example, will children, whether unaccompanied or with their parents, be detained in detention centres such as Harmondsworth and Colnbrook? We agreed on a cross-party basis that they should never again be detained in those centres.

Robert Jenrick: The right hon. Gentleman is particularly knowledgeable on this issue, because he represents immigration removal centres. It is not the Government’s intention that families or minors will be housed in those settings. Minors and families will be housed in age-appropriate accommodation, which is entirely separate and different in nature from the immigration removal centres that he represents. There are facilities such as those today, though not a large number of them. As part of the operationalisation of the Bill, we will need to invest in further facilities and ensure that they meet the standards set out in the detention rules as I have just described. I hope that gives him some reassurance.

Vicky Ford: rose—

Robert Jenrick: I will give way, but then I really must make progress, or else other Members will not have an opportunity to speak.

Vicky Ford: I thank my right hon. Friend. There is a huge amount of concern about how the Bill will be implemented. We thought that hotels would be only temporary, yet they seem to have carried on. The Minister has said that when a child comes in, they will be moved into local authority care as soon as possible. Under the Bill, what is the maximum amount of time that a child could wait before they are in that local authority care?

Robert Jenrick: The position today is that a child arrives in the United Kingdom and is immediately processed in an age-appropriate setting. We then seek to place them with local authorities. Only if local authority care is not immediately available do we deploy the Home Office UASC hotels. There have been incidences, such as last year, when young people were waiting in those hotels for a period of days. That is not our intention. The only limiting factor is the availability of local authority care to support them. If more local authorities were able to come forward—as I said, that is not simple because they have their own capacity constraints—we would not use those hotels at all. It is not our intention to detain minors for a long period for examination. We want them to flow straight out into local authority care, as is the right thing to do.

Yvette Cooper: The Minister is being pressed on the nature of accommodation or detention that children and young people will be held in. The spirit behind the Minister’s intention matters. Therefore, will he tell us if is it true that he gave orders to the asylum reception centre to paint over children’s cartoons? If so, why? Nobody believes that Mickey Mouse cartoons encourage or  deter boats from arriving; they simply think that the Minister is not showing common decency towards vulnerable children.

Robert Jenrick: I have been clear in answer to the right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) that we provide very high quality care at all the centres in which we support unaccompanied children. We did not think that the set-up in that particular unit was age-appropriate, because the majority of the individuals who passed through it unaccompanied last year were teenagers. That does not change the fundamentals that we support with decency and compassion anyone who comes to this country.
The right hon. Lady is missing the point: this Bill seeks to reduce the number of unaccompanied minors coming to the United Kingdom, precisely because we want to protect them and ensure that they are not victims of people smugglers and human traffickers. I take at face value her support for those individuals, but if she wanted to reduce that trade, she would support the Bill or come forward with a credible alternative. She has not done so. Her compassion is, to a degree, performative, because she does not come forward with alternatives that would genuinely support individuals.
Let me move on to modern slavery. The provisions in the Bill relating to that have been of particular concern to my right hon. Friends the Members for Maidenhead and for Chingford and Woodford Green. I welcome the opportunity in recent days to discuss with them the Lords amendments on this issue. It remains our view that there are clear opportunities to misuse modern slavery protections, and it is therefore essential that we take steps in the Bill to prevent misuse. The national referral mechanism rate for people arriving in the UK on small boats and being detained for return has risen from 6% for detentions ending in 2019 to 73% in 2021. The referral rate has since fallen slightly to 65% for detentions ending between January and September. The 33% increase in NRM referrals from 2021 to 2022 has put the NRM under serious strain, which is only getting worse as the trends increase in one direction. There is significant and increasing pressure on public services, which is why we want to take action.

Theresa May: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for the discussions we have had recently. He knows that I have a problem with the statistics: he has, yet again, quoted the statistics that the Minister in the other place quoted as well, which imply that the percentage of people coming on small boats and claiming modern slavery has risen from 6% to 73%. It did not. He is talking about people who are subsequently detained for removal. Will he now confirm that the average percentage of people coming on small boats and claiming modern slavery has not changed over the last three years, and is around 7%?

Robert Jenrick: I think that my right hon. Friend and I agree that the point at which individuals misuse the NRM is the point at which the state tries to remove them from the country. Our concern is that there is a significant increase in the number of people misusing the NRM—and the good work that my right hon. Friend has done on this issue—to bring about a spurious, frivolous, last-minute way of frustrating their removal from the country. So the statistics I referred to are the  most relevant statistics, because that is the point at which individuals are in the detained estate for the purpose of removal. Their removal from the United Kingdom is imminent and we are seeing a very high proportion of them using the NRM to try to delay that removal. Delay, as she knows from her great experience, is particularly relevant, because once someone has delayed their removal, they are liable to be bailed and to go back out into the community. Some will be very difficult to bring back into the detained estate, or may abscond and never be seen again. Even under the current system, that makes it extremely difficult to remove people.
Under the scheme envisaged by the Bill, we will seek to remove many of those people to a safer country such as Rwanda, while today we predominantly remove people back home to their own countries, such as Albania and Romania, so the incentive to misuse the NRM will be significantly higher. It is reasonable to assume that a very large number of individuals will make use of that as a route to frustrate the scheme. As I said earlier, that risks driving a coach and horses through the purpose of the Bill, which is a swift and speedy form of removal to act as a deterrent to prevent people making the crossing in the first place.

Iain Duncan Smith: There are two elements here. First, the whole system can be massively speeded up, which is a fact of the NRM, straightaway. That was an obligation I was meant to have been given in the previous Bill, but it was never brought into the guidance. But the main point here is that nothing that happens outside the UK can be evidenced on this particular point. We are talking about the Minister’s fear that people are departing to within the UK and then subsequently making a claim. The real problem with the Bill right now—he knows I have concerns about this—is that much of the prosecution process against the traffickers can take place only because of the evidence given by those who have been trafficked. On Report, the presumption in the Bill suddenly changed dramatically—it was done without any notice. There is now a presumption that they do not need to be here at all, other than if there is some evidence that somehow they do, whereas before it was that in order to get that evidence, they do need to be here. Why are we knocking out the amendment, rather than amending it and specifying which categories are exempt? He runs the risk of people not giving evidence and not co-operating with the police, and us not getting prosecutions. If they are going to be cleared out of the UK while giving evidence—this is the point—the reality is that they will stop doing so, because they will be in danger of being picked up by the traffickers again outside the UK. Will he therefore rethink this and put something on the face of the Bill to define those who are exempt?

Robert Jenrick: First, I am grateful to my right hon. Friend and to my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead for their advice and wise counsel. We have sought to make changes and to listen to their point of view. That is why we brought forward two significant changes. One, as I have outlined, with respect to retrospection, means that the cohort of individuals who entered the United Kingdom from 7 March to Royal Assent who have not been in the detained estate and are then, if you like, in the community at large—in many cases they are living in supported accommodation and  in some cases are liable to exploitation by human traffickers and other criminals—will now not be included in the full extent of the Bill’s provisions and so can be supported in the ways that my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodgreen wishes. That has significantly reduced the pool of individuals he has concerns about. We are also—I will come on to this in a moment—committing to bringing forward statutory guidance, which I hope will provide further reassurance on the question of how law enforcement authorities would interact with victims of modern slavery to ensure that they can be appropriately supported, and have the time they need to recover and bring forward their claims so that we can all achieve our shared objective, which is the prosecution of human traffickers.

Bob Neill: I recognise that the Minister has moved in some measure on these issues and I am grateful for that, but may I return to the point about the statutory guidance? Surely, given that we all accept that we will only deal with the organised criminals who run modern slavery with the co-operation of their victims, we cannot proceed with the clause as it currently stands without knowing what the statutory guidance will be? It was well known that this was going to be an issue, so I am surprised, frankly, that the draft statutory guidance has not been available to us today. That might well have reassured us sufficiently to support the Minister in his contention. As it is, that is still left hanging in the air. When will we see that statutory guidance?

Robert Jenrick: Let me answer my hon. Friend’s questions by setting out what will be contained in the statutory guidance. The operation of the exception for potential victims of modern slavery to remain in the United Kingdom for the purpose of co-operating with law enforcement agencies in connection with the investigation of a trafficking offence will be subject to statutory guidance. The guidance will provide that an individual who has arrived in the UK illegally and has a positive reasonable grounds decision based on an incident that has taken place in the UK, will be afforded 30 days from that positive decision to confirm that they will co-operate with an investigation relating to their exploitation. They will not be removed within that period, which accords them with protections that are equivalent to those set out in the European convention on action against trafficking in human beings. Should they continue to co-operate with such an investigation, they will continue to be entitled to the support and protections of the NRM. Should further time be required in addition to the 30 days, that period is extendable so that the police and the victim have the time necessary to ensure that traffickers are brought to justice. I hope that that answers his question. I appreciate his desire to see the letter of the statutory guidance, and I will take that away, but that is the essence of it—the position that mirrors the ECAT provisions.

Bob Neill: When will that come into force? Surely, we have to have that in force before the provisions in the Bill come into force. Can he give us that assurance and confirmation?

Robert Jenrick: It is our intention that the statutory guidance will be provided and in place for the  commencement of the Bill. I hope that that also answers the question of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green about the fact that he feels that previous assurances in prior legislation were not fully delivered.

Iain Duncan Smith: I welcome some of the moves the Government have made and I support the principles of what the Bill is trying to do. However, this is a really significant problem of the Government cutting off their nose to spite their face. The positive we have is that when victims give evidence and a prosecution takes place, it cuts down the likelihood that traffickers will be allowed to traffic boats across. When that is turned around, it contradicts the purpose of the Bill. The point I made to the Minister earlier was that the sudden change to the presumption power of the Secretary of State is really where the problem arises. Surely the way to deal with that is not through the guidance mechanism, but to ensure, on the face of the Bill, that that presumption is restricted, and clearly restricted. He talks about the intention of the guidance. I was given that assurance on the other Bill in December. No guidance emerged subsequently so he will forgive me, having sat in Government myself, if I do not always take the word of the Government absolutely as a categorical assurance. The only way we can get this is by doing something on the face of the Bill. The amendment, as amended, would really help enormously to reassure people and achieve the Government’s objective, which is more prosecutions and fewer boats.

Robert Jenrick: I understand my right hon. Friend’s position, but I hope he will accept that we intend to bring forward the statutory guidance and that it will set out the points I have just described. They do accord with ECAT. I appreciate that there are those who would like a longer period than 30 days, but that seems a reasonable place to settle, given that that is what the framers of ECAT themselves chose as the period for recovery and for bringing forward claims.

Theresa May: I am just a little confused and I hope my right hon. Friend can help me. He says that the Government want to bring forward the guidance, yet they oppose Lords amendment 57. Lords amendment 57, as I read it, would confer a power on the Secretary of State
“by regulations to make provision about the circumstances in which it is necessary for a person present in the UK to provide cooperation of the kind mentioned”
earlier in the clause. That is precisely the guidance he is now saying he will bring in, so why is he opposing Lords amendment 57?

Robert Jenrick: We do not need that power, so the amendment is superfluous; we already have the power to bring forward statutory guidance. It was our intention to do that. The guidance is being drafted, and it will set out what I have detailed.
I am conscious that I need to draw my remarks to a close, so that others can speak. On the question of legal proceedings, Lords amendments 1, 7, 90 and 93 are, in the Government’s view, wrecking amendments, pure and simple. For the Bill to succeed, we have to break the cycle of late, repeated, spurious legal challenges, but the amendments would perpetuate those. Lords amendment  1 in particular removes the clear purpose of the Bill as set out in clause 1, which is to prevent and deter illegal migration. The amendment takes a wrecking ball to our well established constitutional arrangement whereby we treat international law as being separate from domestic law. The amendment would incorporate the refugee convention, the UN convention on the rights of the child, and other conventions into domestic law by the back door. It would tie up the Bill in legal knots, and result in every removal being subject to endless litigation in the courts.

Jeremy Corbyn: Will the Minister give way?

Robert Jenrick: I will not, if the right hon. Gentleman will forgive me. I feel that I have to make progress now.
Lords amendments 1, 7, 90 and 93 are all the more unnecessary as the Bill already affords adequate protections against removal to a country that is unsafe for a particular person. That brings me to Lords amendment 23, about the removal of LGBT people to certain countries. Let me say unambiguously that we treat the safety of LGBT people with the utmost seriousness, and do not want to do anything that would in any way compromise their safety and security. I regret to say that Lords amendment 23, though clearly well intentioned, misunderstands the approach taken in the Bill. With the exception of EU and European economic area nationals and those of Switzerland and Albania, people will not be returned to their home country if they make a protection claim. If a person is issued with a third-country removal notice, they can challenge their removal to the specified country on the basis that they would face a real risk of serious and irreversible harm there, including persecution. If a serious harm suspensive claim is refused, the person has an avenue of appeal to the upper tribunal. The amendment is well meant, but the concerns that underpin it are unfounded. We take pride in the UK’s support for LGBT communities globally, and our commitment to this cause remains unwavering.

Joanna Cherry: Rwanda has no laws prohibiting discrimination against same-sex attracted people, and people whose gender identity is different from their sex at birth. Can the Minister not understand why an LGBT person might rather come to the UK for asylum, where we have such anti-discrimination laws, than be sent somewhere like Rwanda, which does not?

Robert Jenrick: I understand the hon. and learned Lady’s point. I say two things in response. First, the premise of asylum claims being handled in safe third countries is that those countries must be safe. Through our partnership with the Government of Rwanda, we have done work to ensure that appropriate safeguards are put in place. That has been tested by the courts, and remains an ongoing matter for the courts. Secondly, we placed a safeguard in the scheme: a person can claim that their removal to that country would put them at real risk of serious and irreversible harm, which includes persecution. I completely understand why the hon. and learned Lady says what she does, and the legitimate concern that she voices, but I do not think that the instance that she raises is founded in reality. If it were, we would take that very seriously indeed, because the Government do not want to do anything to compromise the safety and security of LGBT people.
In response to Lords amendments 73 and 74 about the power to amend the meaning of “serious and irreversible harm”, we have sought to provide further assurance by bringing forward an amendment in lieu to ensure that the power cannot be used to remove the provisions in clause 38(4) that set out what constitutes serious and irreversible harm.
Lords amendments 8 and 9 undermine a key plank of the Bill, which is the provision under which asylum and relevant human rights claims can be declared inadmissible. Lords amendment 8 would incentivise people smugglers to prioritise unaccompanied children, which would put more young lives at risk and split more families. Amendment 9 would simply afford illegal entrants yet another opportunity of playing the system and dragging things out as long as possible, in the hope that they would become eligible for asylum.
Lords amendment 50 seeks to limit the Secretary of State’s power to transfer a child out of local authority accommodation and into accommodation provided or arranged by the Secretary of State, by providing that the Secretary of State may do so only where that is necessary to safeguard and promote the welfare of the child. Again, the amendment is unnecessary and duplicates existing law. Under section 55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009, the Home Secretary is already required to have regard to the need to safeguard and promote the welfare of the child when making a decision to exercise the “vice versa” power.
Moving on to safe and legal routes, Lords amendment 102 relates to clause 59, which requires the Home Secretary, within six months of Royal Assent, to prepare and publish a report on the safe and legal routes by which persons may enter the UK, including any proposed additional safe and legal routes. Lords amendment 102 would in effect mandate that such additional safe and legal routes be brought into being within two months of the publication of the clause 59 report. Again, the amendment is unnecessary. As I set out on Report in April, we will implement any proposed new routes as soon as practicable, and in any event by the end of 2024.

Robert Buckland: I have listened very carefully to everything that the Minister has said on this subject, and I know that he is sincere in his intentions. We agree on the need for a quota when it comes to safe and legal routes, but will he accept that 18 months hence is an inordinately long time, bearing in mind that the Bill will have come into force? While we might not be able to have complete synchronicity of new routes with the coming into force of this important Bill, can we at least have a much greater sense of urgency, and bring forward proposals for safe and legal routes much sooner than the end of next year?

Robert Jenrick: My right hon. and learned Friend and I share a concern on this issue. We want to bring forward any new routes as soon as is practical; he has my assurance, and that of the Government, that we will move as quickly as we can. I do not think it is practicable for new routes to be brought into being within two months of the publication of the report provided for in clause 59. It inevitably takes time to work with partners such as the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees on developing a credible scheme, and to implement it. It is important that we give the Home Office the  necessary time. However, I have been very clear that we will move as quickly as possible. [Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) says that we have had 13 years; more humanitarian visas were issued last year by this Conservative Government than probably any Government since the second world war. Since 2015, under a majority Conservative Government, 550,000 people have entered the UK on humanitarian grounds. That compares extremely favourably with the record of the Government of which she was a member.

Hilary Benn: Will the Minister give way?

Robert Jenrick: I will; then I will need to bring my remarks to a close.

Hilary Benn: The Government have said that they are committed to bringing forward safe, legal routes, but that they will not do that until they have stopped the boats. Does the Minister not recognise that one thing that the Government could do that would help stop the boats is bring forward safe, legal routes?

Robert Jenrick: No, I do not agree with the right hon. Gentleman. I think there is a role for safe, legal routes, and I want the UK to be respected internationally for the way in which we support those seeking sanctuary. That is what we have ensured in recent years by creating world-leading schemes, such as those for Ukraine, Syria and Hong Kong, and indeed there is also the global scheme, which is operated by the UNHCR. I do not accept the argument that I think he is advancing, which is that if we produce a larger safe and legal route to the United Kingdom, it will lead to a reduction in the number of individuals crossing illegally in small boats. The individuals we would likely bring to the United Kingdom under a safe and legal route are quite different, in the main, from those coming across in small boats. Most of our small boat arrivals are young men in their 20s and 30s who are already in a place of safety—France—with a fully functioning asylum system. The kind of scheme the Government envisage for safe and legal routes is one where we take families and vulnerable people directly from conflict zones or refugee camps elsewhere in the world. That is a very different system from offering a safe and legal route to predominantly young men in a place of safety to come to the United Kingdom. That does not denude the value of having safe and legal routes, but the purpose is different.
Lords amendment 103 relates to the functions of the National Crime Agency, and I am afraid that it just amounts to legislative grandstanding. The NCA’s statutory functions already cover tackling organised immigration crime. As such, the amendment simply risks undermining  the operational independence of the director general by tying his hands as to how to organise the NCA to best deliver its objectives. As I said in answer to an earlier question, our colleagues at the NCA who work every day on organised immigration crime would be very surprised to hear the contention that they are not focused on this work, because they certainly are.
Finally, Lords amendment 104, which was tabled by the Archbishop of Canterbury, is well-meaning but unnecessary. It is a distraction from the immediate priority of stopping the boats and tackling the threat to life arising from dangerous, illegal and unnecessary channel crossings. That is the aim of the Bill, and the Lords amendment does not reflect the actions that we have already taken through cross-Government initiatives to tackle the refugee crisis and through the ongoing work to deliver our strategic approach to tackling human trafficking. Moreover, it does not recognise how this country has responded to the result of crises, offering sanctuary to over 550,000 people through safe and legal routes since 2015.
By getting a grip on illegal migration, we aim to reduce the pressure that it places on our public services and on community cohesion and to increase the capacity to support those who seek sanctuary here in the UK. The stop-the-boats Bill is designed to ensure that the UK can be an even greater force for good in the world by using our finite resources on those who truly need it.
In conclusion, it is vital that this Bill reaches the statute book quickly and in a form that will stop the boats. It is riddled with exceptions and get-out clauses placed in it by the other place. If they remain, it will simply not work. We have to send a clear message back to the other place that it is now their turn to think again and to respect the will of the elected House. The public expect us to tackle this issue, to secure our borders and to stop the boats.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Nigel Evans: Order. I am looking to see whether people are standing who did not put in to speak, and there are a couple at least. Thank you very much. You can resume your seats.

Royal Assent

Nigel Evans: I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that His Majesty has signified his Royal Assent to the following Acts:
Finance (No. 2) Act 2023
Supply and Appropriation (Main Estimates) Act 2023
National Security Act 2023.

Illegal Migration Bill

Debate resumed.

Stephen Kinnock: Here we go again: another day, another Bill designed to chase headlines and manufacture controversy, rather than tackle the asylum crisis that has been caused by the incompetence and indifference of the last 13 years. That said, a casual observer of the Prime Minister’s recent trip to Dover could be forgiven for thinking that it was all sorted—job done. There he was sporting his super-sized new boots and boasting about the slight decrease in crossings, while apparently failing to realise that strong winds in the channel were the actual cause of his somewhat premature celebrations. Since he danced his victory jig in Dover, we have seen channel crossings skyrocket, with the busiest June yet for the criminal people smuggling trade, with 3,824 asylum seekers making the dangerous journey last month. Call me old-fashioned, but an asylum strategy that is based on the weather is probably not a sustainable strategy.
Then we have the Home Secretary. She jetted off to Rwanda on a taxpayer-funded vanity photoshoot to champion the new housing being built for the asylum seekers she dreams of one day flying over there. But again, all was not as it seemed: the housing estate she was showcasing is largely due to be used to house Rwandan nationals. Last week, the Court of Appeal reminded her that, even if her plan does go ahead, the Rwandan authorities can process only around 100 asylum claims per year—less than 0.3% of last year’s small boat crossers. I am not sure what the Home Secretary plans to do with the other 99.7% of asylum seekers or, indeed, why she thinks a 0.3% chance of removal to Rwanda is likely to put off a single asylum seeker considering paying money to a people smuggler. For a deterrent to be effective, it must be credible, and a 0.3% risk of deportation to Rwanda is not going to deter.

John Hayes: I know that the hon. Gentleman takes these matters very seriously and he will remember that I was very complimentary about him in various ways in a debate in Westminster Hall. However, he must recognise that the deterrent effect of being processed offshore, which the Australians experienced during their Operation Sovereign Borders, would mean fewer people coming here. As he described, the people traffickers’ branding is that, if someone gets to Britain, they will never leave. By challenging that sales pitch, we will deter people from coming.

Stephen Kinnock: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention, but I think he misunderstands the basic psychology here. We are talking about people who have already risked life and limb and taken a very dangerous journey to get as far as the channel. The idea that a 0.3% chance of being removed to Rwanda is going to deter people who have already taken such massive risks is simply for the birds, and that is why the Rwanda scheme is fundamentally flawed.
Last but not least, we have the Immigration Minister, whose latest foray into playing the tough guy was to order that Mickey Mouse cartoons in immigration centres be painted over because they were just too cheery for his liking. Many of those children are running away from  unimaginable horrors, so I really do hope that the Minister will take some time to reflect on the morality of his actions. The sheer pettiness and petulance are also quite astonishing, because painting over Disney characters in immigration centres will not stop the boats—I cannot believe I even need to say those words. Those three short stories about the Prime Minister, the Home Secretary and the Immigration Minister make it clear that we are not exactly dealing with a well-oiled machine here.
Last week, we finally received the Home Office’s impact assessment for this legislation, which revealed that it will cost the Government £169,000 per asylum seeker sent to Rwanda—five times the figure being briefed out when the partnership was announced last year. That is on top of the £140 million that has already been handed over to the Rwandan Government for what must surely be the most expensive press release in history. This whole sorry tale is a shambolic farce, and the cost to the taxpayer of the Rwanda policy, this legislation and the asylum backlog has become utterly extortionate.
The cost of the asylum system is estimated by the National Audit Office to be seven times as large as it was under the last Labour Government—at an astonishing £3.6 billion. Almost 50,000 people are stuck in hotels, at £7 million a day, with 172,000 in the backlog. For the avoidance of doubt, that is the real backlog, not the imaginary “legacy cases” invented by the Prime Minister as a way of spinning the numbers. In fact, the backlog is nine times higher than it was when Labour left office in 2010. By the way, we are still waiting for the Immigration Minister and the Prime Minister to correct the record on this point after the UK Statistics Authority comprehensively demolished their claims.
As the Home Secretary and her officials have confirmed, numbers are going up, not down. Yesterday, the permanent secretary to the Home Office confirmed to the Public Accounts Committee that the Prime Minister is failing in his pledge to reduce asylum seeker hotel use. To make matters worse, the National Audit Office has declared that the Government will also fail to achieve their aim of clearing the so-called legacy backlog of 92,000 cases by the end of this year.

Tim Loughton: We are here to discuss rather a lot of Lords amendments. The hon. Gentleman has now been speaking for six minutes. I have been listening hard and, by my reckoning, he has not mentioned a single amendment. Can he give us an ETA for when he is likely to start talking relevantly about what we are here to discuss? Many of us would like to discuss the amendments.

Stephen Kinnock: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I simply note that the Immigration Minister was on his feet for one hour and 15 minutes. There was plenty of context and background in his comments, too. We need to understand that the Bill has been brought forward against a backdrop of crisis and chaos and it is important that we have that on the record.
Interestingly, the Prime Minister seems to have concocted a new solution, which is simply to allow asylum seekers to slip off the radar, never to be seen or heard of again. The Government claim that their decision-making rate has increased and that they are getting on with clearing the backlog, but the reality is that more than half of the  so-called asylum decisions are withdrawn applications or so-called administrative decisions. In other words, asylum seekers are melting into the underground economy, and many of them will never be heard of or seen again by our authorities. The Government are just letting them go. Withdrawals, as a proportion of completed cases, have increased from 20% to 55% on this Prime Minister’s watch. If that is not turning a blind eye to people absconding and disappearing into the system, I do not know what is.
It is against that backdrop of crisis and chaos that Ministers introduced the legislation before us this afternoon. As we have consistently pointed out, the Bill will only make a terrible situation worse. Far from cleaning up the awful mess that has built up over 13 years of ineptitude, it will simply grow the backlog, increase the cost and ensure that people smugglers are laughing all the way to the bank.
At the heart of the Bill are two instructions to the Government—to detain and remove every asylum seeker who comes to the UK via irregular routes—but with our asylum accommodation capacity already at breaking point, where on earth will the Home Secretary detain them? And with her unworkable Rwanda plan in tatters and with negotiations with the EU on a successor to the Dublin regulation nowhere to be seen, where on earth is she going to remove them to? We therefore commend the work of all the Lords and Baronesses who have sought to improve this profoundly flawed and counterproductive Bill. They really had their work cut out for them, given that the Government were defeated a staggering 20 times in the other place.
Amendments throughout the Bill’s passage have focused on mitigating its most egregious excesses, while trying to steer the Government in the direction of Labour’s five-point plan to fix the broken asylum system that, despite their protestations, Conservative Members know full well is a comprehensive agenda based on hard graft, common sense and quiet diplomacy, rather than the headline-chasing gimmicks they have come up with. Our plan includes repurposing the Rwanda money to the National Crime Agency to recruit a specialist unit of officers to tackle the criminal gangs upstream. Lords amendment 103, in the name of Lord Coaker, places responsibility on the NCA to tackle immigration crime.
Of the other substantial Lords amendments, the majority seek to prevent the utterly unnecessary attacks on some of the most vulnerable people in society, commit Britain to complying with international law, or seek to find long-term solutions to the global asylum crisis via international solutions and controlled and managed routes.
To ensure that Britain meets its obligations under international law, we support Lords amendment 1, which adds a requirement that nothing in the Bill should require any act that would violate the UK’s relevant commitments under international law. We are extremely concerned that the Government are subjecting unaccompanied children to the so-called hostile environment. While the Minister paints over Mickey Mouse murals, we on these Benches want unaccompanied children to be treated with respect. That is why we support Lords amendment 33, which retains the current 72-hour limit on the detention of children, and Lords  amendment 31, which retains the current 24-hour limit on the detention of unaccompanied children, both in the name of Baroness Mobarik. We do not believe the Government’s concessions offer enough.

Bob Neill: I was superficially attracted to Lords amendment 1, but will the hon. Gentleman consider these two points? First, it is an established principle of interpretation that the courts will always read statute in accordance with international convention obligations, as far as it is possible to do so—that was most recently established in the Assange case. Secondly, Lord Wolfson raised the point in the other place that the effect of clause 1, as amended, however intended, is substantively to entrench or incorporate those conventions in UK domestic law. Surely that is not something that should be done through an amendment to an Act of Parliament. There may be arguments for or against it, but that is its effect. It is not an interpretive clause but an incorporative clause, and some of us have a problem with doing it in that way at this time in this particular Bill.

Stephen Kinnock: I thank the Chairman of the Justice Committee for that intervention. Let us not forget that page 1 says the Government cannot confirm that the Bill complies with international law. I also remind him that we are dealing with a Government who seem to be more than prepared to break international law, with the Northern Ireland protocol being just one example. I am afraid it is just not possible to take the Government’s word on trust or at face value, which is why additional safeguards have to be built into the process.
Lords amendment 8, in the name of Lord Dubs, seeks to ensure that asylum and human rights claims from unaccompanied children who are exempt from the duty to remove are treated as admissible, and Lords amendment 50, in the name of the Bishop of Durham, limits the Secretary of State’s power to transfer a child out of local authority care and into accommodation provided by the Home Office to cases where to do so is
“necessary to safeguard and promote the welfare of the child.”
We are also determined to protect vulnerable women, particularly those who are pregnant or victims of modern slavery. In that spirit, we on these Benches support Baroness Lister’s amendments 37 and 38, which retain the 72-hour limit on the detention of pregnant women. We are less than satisfied with the Government’s concession on this point.
We support the amendments that protect victims of modern slavery, including Lords amendment 56 in the name of Lord Randall, which exempts victims of modern slavery from being removed and from being denied access to support during the statutory recovery period, and Lords amendment 57, tabled by Lord Carlile, which removes the Bill’s presumption that it is not necessary for victims of modern slavery to remain in the UK for the purposes of co-operating with any criminal proceedings against alleged perpetrators. That of course might sometimes be the case.
Ultimately, the Government need to accelerate the national referral process as a matter of urgency because the average wait time is 553 days, which is unacceptable. The Immigration Minister’s incorrect comments on modern slavery have been well documented, and he was recently rebuked yet again by the UK Statistics Authority for making those unfounded claims.
The constant stream of factually incorrect claims distorts the debate and plays into the hands of the people traffickers. I strongly encourage us to start seeing the facts and evidence before us as the basis for debate, otherwise there is such a danger that the Bill will turn into a traffickers charter, with the Prime Minister, the Home Secretary and the Immigration Minister effectively enabling the criminal gangs.
We also support Lords amendment 23 in the name of Lord Etherton, as we cannot have a situation in which we remove LGBT refugees to third countries with Governments that pursue homophobic and transphobic policies.
I stress that, on these Benches, we are strongly committed to working with our international partners as we seek to find long-term solutions to the global migration crisis. In Committee and on Report, we tabled an international co-operation amendment to connect the need to achieve a returns deal with the EU and France for small-boat migrants with the need for Britain and other European countries to play our part in giving sanctuary to genuine refugees in need of our support, starting with those who have family in the UK. This remains our commitment for when we enter government.
To that end, we support Lords amendment 104 in the name of the Archbishop of Canterbury, which requires the Government to publish a 10-year strategy on countering human trafficking and responding to international refugee crises, and Lords amendment 102 in the name of Baroness Stroud, which places a duty on the Government to establish safe and legal routes to asylum.
Finally, Lord German’s amendment 9 rightly states that the Government should accept asylum claims if they have not removed inadmissible claimants within six months. We cannot have refugees stuck in indefinite limbo, unable to work or contribute, at an extortionate cost to the taxpayer. The Government are already introducing this bigger backlog Bill. It beggars belief that Ministers now want to turn this legislation into an indefinite limbo Bill.
The amendments before us today enjoyed substantial support in the other place, each passing by a comfortable margin. A responsible Government would have sought compromise and made concessions, but instead Ministers chose to double down, to the point where Parliament was treated to the spectacle of Lord Lebedev of Siberia being dragged in to vote for the first time since he was ennobled three years ago, in a desperately futile whipping operation.
The truth is that the Bill is just a tawdry and deeply counterproductive attempt to show that the Government are doing something—anything—to respond to a growing asylum crisis of their making. Those on the Government Benches know that the asylum system is broken—indeed, they admit it—and they should know because they broke it. Their attempts to fix it are a shambles. They have sent more Home Secretaries to Rwanda than asylum seekers. They have had two migration Bills, yet neither has stopped a single boat. This Bill—the bigger backlog Bill—will increase asylum hotel use all around the country.
Recently, before the Home Affairs Committee, the Home Secretary failed to tell us how she will find the 154 vulnerable children missing from Government asylum  hotels; how many asylum caseworkers actually work in her Department; and how many of the 12,000 Albanians who arrived on small boats last year have been returned. It is a scene of crisis and chaos. The Conservatives have taken a sledgehammer to our asylum system, and British taxpayers are paying the price.
Perhaps the most disheartening aspect of this whole fiasco is that the Government never take responsibility and always try to pass the buck. They blame the British legal system, the civil service and the EU—they even blame the football pundits—but they have a working majority in this place, so this is on them and them only. They have failed, so they need to get out of the way. We need a general election, a Labour Government, and our comprehensive plan to stop the boats and fix the broken asylum system—and we need it now.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Nigel Evans: Order. It is clear to me that this debate is going to go the distance, and a number of people are trying to catch my eye. We have only two hours left, so may I ask for brevity, as it would be incredibly useful in trying to get everybody in? I call Theresa May.

Theresa May: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I want to concentrate my remarks on Lords amendments 2 and 56. I welcome the Government’s movement on the issue of retrospection. Whatever the motivation, it does mean that people who come here and are subjected to slavery, and who arrived after 7 March and before the commencement of the Bill, will get support. I welcome that.
However, of course I want support to continue for the victims of modern slavery here in the UK after commencement of the Bill. Hence my interest, as a former Home Secretary and long-standing Member of this House, in Lords amendment 56, which was tabled by Lord Randall. The Bill has been marketed as a stop the boats Bill. We all want to stop the boats. Nobody wants to see people risking their lives in small boats going across the channel, as we do not want to see people risking their lives in unseaworthy vessels going across the Mediterranean. However, this Bill is not just written to stop the boats; it covers all illegal migration and its unwritten subtext is the “stop certain victims’ claims of modern slavery” Bill. This is not about stopping false claims of modern slavery; it is about stopping all claims, full stop. That is where I depart from the Government.
When I was Home Secretary, we were very clear that modern slavery should not be seen as part of the immigration issue, but the Government are now taking those two together, and that is one of the difficulties. It is not clear what problem will be solved by saying that people who are here illegally cannot claim modern slavery and cannot be afforded the support and protection afforded to modern slavery victims, and, therefore, it is not clear why the Government want to reject Lords amendment 56.
Perhaps the Government’s concern is that people will come off the small boats and claim modern slavery, but the amendment does not allow them to do that. It has been suggested to me that a boat might land and not be apprehended, and when somebody is caught a couple of  days later, for example, they would then claim modern slavery. First, let me say that the first responders, aided by the changes in the Nationality and Borders Act 2022, should be well able to see through that. Secondly, the purpose of the Bill is to stop the boats, so if the Bill is successful, that situation will not occur.
Lords amendment 56 is not about small boats. Almost no one arriving on a small boat after commencement of this Bill will be covered by it, but I do want to set out the type of victim who would be covered by that amendment and, therefore, is now going to be denied support as a victim of modern slavery.
Let us imagine a young woman—it could be a young man but, given the numbers, it is most likely to be a young woman—who is persuaded by a male friend to come over to the UK for what he says will be a great job and a wonderful life together. Perhaps she thinks that they are in love, that this is a way of getting out of the debt she is in, or that she wants to leave a difficult family relationship or an abusive relationship. She comes with him, probably on illegal documents, but that is unbeknown to her. As soon as she gets here, she is put into prostitution and he benefits financially from that. Forced into sexual exploitation, living in appalling conditions and not paid, she is in slavery. After several months or perhaps after years, she manages to escape. Under the Modern Slavery Act 2015, she could be provided with the support needs to get her life back and enable the police to identify and prosecute the perpetrators.
Under this Bill, the Government’s response would be quite different. She would get no support. The Government’s response would be, “We don’t care that you have been in slavery in the UK. We don’t care that you’ve been in a living hell. We don’t care that you have been the victim of crime. We do care that you came here illegally, even though you probably didn’t know it. So we are going to detain you and send you home, even if it is into the arms of the very people who trafficked you here in the first place. Or we want to send you to Rwanda.” No thought would be given to whether the young woman would get her life back and, crucially, no thought would be given to catching and prosecuting the perpetrators. The evidence of the police is clear: if we want victims to provide evidence to bring slave drivers to justice, the victims need time and support, and they need to be here. This Bill ties the hands of the police and undoes the good work of the Modern Slavery Act.
I know that Ministers have said that this Bill will enable more perpetrators to be stopped, but on modern slavery I genuinely believe it will do the opposite: it will enable more slave drivers to operate and make money out of human misery. It will consign more people to slavery. There is no doubt about it: if Lords amendment 56 is overthrown, that will be the impact.
The Minister has shown a willingness—he has described this at the Dispatch Box today—to look for mitigations. However, as he said, so far those mitigations have been offered as limited change and only in guidance, not in the Bill. The best mitigation would be not to press the objection to Lords amendment 56 and allow it to stand in the Bill. In the absence of that, I hope that the Government will stand by assurances they have given to find some workable compromise, but to put it in the Bill. The Government want to deny certain victims of  modern slavery support, which will deeply damage the operation of the Modern Slavery Act. The alternative is to let Lords amendment 56 stand. If the Government persist in disagreeing with Lords amendment 56, I will have to persist in disagreeing with the Government.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Nigel Evans: I call Dame Diana Johnson.

Diana R. Johnson: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. May I start by agreeing with the Minister on the vital role that the other place plays as a revising Chamber—

Nigel Evans: Order. Sorry, Dame Diana. You are the next one to speak from your party, and I have made a faux pas. I should call Stuart C. McDonald.

Stuart McDonald: I absolutely forgive you for that, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I offer my apologies to the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee. I look forward to hearing her remarks shortly.
It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), and I echo everything she said about modern slavery. I would like to say it is a pleasure to be taking part in a debate on this Bill again, but unfortunately it most definitely is not. Members will not be surprised to hear that the position of my party is that this remains a rotten, utterly misconceived and cruel Bill that will not stop boats but will cause immense human suffering to people who have fled persecution and harm. For the reasons we have just heard, it is a traffickers charter. It has been rushed through Parliament in a most appalling way, without consultation or proper scrutiny.
Although the House of Lords has done some decent work to date, forgive me if we are not popping the champagne corks at this stage. The 20 Lords amendments add a bit of polish, but they barely scratch the surface of the problems with the Bill, and experience tells us, unfortunately, that their lordships will be bargained down to three or four moderate concessions. They have already passed up the chance to refuse the Bill a Second Reading, with Labour peers abstaining for utterly unconvincing reasons. If it was a revising Chamber with any sort of teeth or credibility, it would at least be using its powers to delay this Bill and let voters decide this issue for themselves at the next election.
In that context, it is vital that we remember during today’s debate and the whole ping-pong process that only one solitary sentence in the Government’s 2019 manifesto referred to asylum. It was a very benign sentence:
“We will continue to grant asylum and support to refugees fleeing persecution, with the ultimate aim of helping them to return home if it is safe to do so.”
That was it. This Bill, and every single one of the Government’s motions to reject the Lords amendments, is completely and utterly contrary to that pledge. Without the amendments, the Bill will essentially stop the grant of asylum to almost anyone. Instead of offering support or an assisted return home to most refugees, it will enforce unlimited detention at the whim of the Home Secretary, permanent limbo, or threatened removal to  Rwanda. Even children and trafficking victims are not to be spared, and the consequences for them will be horrendous.
This outrageous Bill, which rides roughshod over international law without any electoral endorsement, is precisely the sort of Bill that the House of Lords should be voting down and delaying. We can make that less necessary by agreeing to all the Lords amendments. That is the least we should do, and it really should not be too much to ask.
As we have heard, we are talking about amendments that will ensure compliance with our international obligations under vital international treaties such as the refugee convention, the European convention on human rights, the trafficking convention and the convention on the rights of the child. We are talking about basic respect for the rule of law, and my party wholeheartedly endorses Lords amendment 1, which incorporates those obligations into the Bill.

Joanna Cherry: When the Minister was asked about Lords amendment 1, he said that it “goes without saying” that the Government adhere to their international obligations, but they have not been able to certify the Bill as compatible with the ECHR and the cross-party Joint Committee on Human Rights, under my chairmanship, said that the Bill risks breaching a number of our binding international human rights obligations. Is it not the case that, as things stand, the only way we have of putting that right is to support Lords amendment 1?

Stuart McDonald: I absolutely agree. The most obvious example—I would say it is blindingly obvious—is the trafficking convention. That says that we must provide support to victims of trafficking, yet here we have a Bill that says the opposite. We are going to say, “Victim of trafficking or not, you are not getting support.” That is a blatant contravention of the trafficking convention, and that is why we need the treaties in Lords amendment 1 incorporated into clause 1.

John Hayes: Surely, the hon. Gentleman recognises that the point of Lords amendment 1 is to incorporate a whole range of international obligations into our law. It may well be that those obligations matter and that the Bill needs to be in line with them, but Lords amendment 1 would incorporate them into law. This is not the place to do that, and it is not the means to do it.

Stuart McDonald: It is absolutely the place to do it, and it is essential that we do it, precisely for the reasons I have just given. Various provisions of the Bill clearly breach some of those conventions. I have just given the example of the trafficking convention. I cannot see how any sensible person can read the Bill and say that it accords with our obligations under the trafficking convention—I really cannot. I see no alternative but to support Lords amendment 1; in fact, I absolutely embrace what their lordships have attempted to do here.
We are also talking about amendments to stop mass and indeterminate detention at the whim of the Home Secretary. Very little attention has been drawn to those shocking and appalling powers today; I would have thought they would embarrass some Conservative MPs, yet we have barely considered them. We need to bring back the principle that it is for the courts to assess what  is necessary to effect removal, rather than leaving it open to the Home Secretary to detain just for her convenience.
We are talking about amendments protecting pregnant women, and accompanied and unaccompanied children, from lengthy detention. The concession on pregnant women is a rare positive, and I welcome it, but the so-called concession on detaining children is nothing of the sort. It means that a few, but very far from all, will be allowed to apply for bail after eight days. That is not a time limit and it will not apply universally—far from it. We should not let the Government away with detaining hundreds and possibly thousands of kids indefinitely.
The Government have been forced to concede on amendments regarding the retrospective application of the Bill, which is good. Presumably, they do not want a backlog of 10,000 as soon as the Bill goes into force. Again, though, the concession does not go far enough, as important parts of the Bill will still be applied retrospectively. In the Government’s amendment in lieu, there is a power for Ministers to change the commencement date again. It would be useful at least to have an assurance from the Minister that that will not be used to put the clock back again, whether to March or to any other time before Royal Assent.
We are talking about amendments protecting LGBT people from removal to countries where they will almost certainly face serious harm. That protection is necessary, because the flimsy procedures in the Bill as it stood when the Government introduced it were totally inadequate to stop that happening.
We are talking about amendments to remove victims of trafficking from the Bill’s horrendous reach. As the right hon. Member for Maidenhead put it, without the Lords amendments, trafficking and slavery victims will have absolutely no incentive to seek support from the Government; in fact, they will have every incentive not to. Instead, they will be driven straight back into the hands of the people who have been exploiting them.
We are talking about amendments to stop the Home Office sticking children in hotels, from which hundreds have already gone missing. As the Children’s Commissioner for England and Wales said just yesterday, that cannot be allowed to happen.
We are talking about amendments to stop the Home Office removing children before the Home Office age assessment can be challenged. The Minister failed to mention that, in the majority of cases where there is a dispute about age, the Home Office is shown to be wrong. There is an appalling danger that unaccompanied children will be kicked out of the country before they have the chance to challenge the assessment that has been made about them.
We are talking about amendments to strengthen the pathetic safeguards in the Bill so that those challenging removal do not need to meet impossible tests of imminent, serious and irreversible harm. We are also talking about amendments to reinstate the fundamental right to challenge potentially illegal Government removal decisions through judicial review before people are stuck on a plane. Again, we are simply asking for respect for our courts and the rule of law. We support the worthy amendments tabled by the Archbishop of Canterbury to support safe routes and a proper strategy.
We support the pivotal Lords amendments that say that we should process asylum claims from children, and claims from people who are not removed within six months, just as happens now. Without that amendment, many thousands of people will end up permanently in limbo—either in indefinite detention or being supported indefinitely—or going underground because they have no incentive any more to keep in touch with the Home Office.
It shows how extraordinarily far to the extremes this Parliament has lurched that any of those Lords amendments are even controversial. All the risk assessments that the Government were forced to publish should have caused alarm bells to ring loudly. The Bill will be an absolute disaster, and an expensive one at that—in terms of spending and for the UK’s reputation, but most importantly for the lives of the people who are caught up in its tentacles. It is the desperate last throw of the dice from a desperate Government.
The real question is whether we will, for once, see some gumption and ambition from the second Chamber. There is no point in its passing 20 amendments just to give them all up seven days later. If it is not this outrageous Bill that the House of Lords kicks into touch, then which one will it be? If not this attack on international law, utterly without electoral mandate, what will it take? If locking up children, handing powers to traffickers and destroying the asylum system does not spur the House of Lords into action, what will?
If the House of Lords is not going to use its powers now, what is the point of those powers? What is the point of the House of Lords, and what is the point of the Opposition appointing peers? The Bill does not just need all the Lords amendments retained; frankly, it needs stopped, and it is up to the House of Lords to make sure that happens.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Nigel Evans: Order. I will call Tim Loughton first, and then it will be Dame Diana take two.

Tim Loughton: I will aim to complete my speech in less time than it took the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald) to start talking about the Lords amendments, which is what we are here to do—but we will see how we go. I declare an interest as the chair of a safeguarding board of a children’s company.
I thank the Minister for the extensive discussions that we have had about the Lords amendments. I fear that we have not quite got there, so we may be back here again in a while. There has been an inordinate amount of debate on the Bill, and a lot of work has been done in the Lords, which is why we have so many amendments.
I support the Bill and I want it to pass, but it needs properly to balance safe and legal routes, and assurances about looking after the most vulnerable—particularly children—with coming down hard on people who are gaming the system and do not have a legitimate case for claiming asylum in the UK.
I do not have time to talk about every Lords amendment, so I will focus on two main areas: child detention, and safe and legal routes. I am pleased and grateful to the Government for the progress that we have made on the detention of pregnant women; that was a no-brainer,  frankly. I also have some concerns around the treatment of people being transported back to other countries on the grounds of sexuality, and I want further assurances on that from the Minister. I also have concerns about accompanied children. There is a real problem with so-called families, who have been put together by people smugglers, as the Home Affairs Committee saw when we went to Dover. We came across somebody claiming to be the uncle of a young girl and they did not even speak the same language. There are problems here, but I absolutely want to concentrate on unaccompanied asylum-seeking children.
I am also pleased that Lord Carlile’s amendments around retrospectivity have been accepted. The Archbishop of Canterbury’s 10-year strategy has some merit in it, but I do not think that it is for this Bill; it is a strategy for a Government rather than being for a piece of legislation such as this.
On the subject of child detention, despite the substantial discussions I mentioned, it would appear that the Government are setting out only a very narrow concession, just to give the possibility of bail after eight days to one small subgroup of unaccompanied asylum-seeking children detained on the grounds of removal only. The Government themselves said in March in guidance:
“A period of detention can have a significant and negative impact on a child’s mental or physical health and development”.
I think that we would all agree with that, so such detention needs to be used sensitively and sparingly.
This is a really sensitive issue. I think it was a proud achievement of the coalition Government when, after a Citizens’ Assembly back in 2010, David Cameron said that child detention was not acceptable and pledged to end it. It was part of the coalition programme in May 2010. Detention policy changed in 2011 and was codified in the Immigration Act 2014. Large numbers of children were being detained before 2010. There were 1,065 children being detained in 2009 alone. There was a case of a three-year-old girl who had spent 166 days of her life—her short life—in Yarl’s Wood detention centre. That was completely unacceptable, so it was right that the law was changed.
At the time, guarantees were also made in a debate on the Nationality and Borders Bill. The Government made explicitly clear their commitment to the rationale that unaccompanied children should not be blocked from claiming asylum and would be exempt from the inadmissibility process. As the Minister set out on Report of that Bill:
“I wish to emphasise that we will always act in accordance with our international obligations, and to be very clear that unaccompanied asylum-seeking children will not be subject to inadmissibility or transferred for offshore processing.”—[Official Report, 7 December 2021; Vol. 705, c. 311.]
There was merit in that then and there is still merit in it now.
This matter was raised as a priority issue in the Committee and Report stages of this Bill. The Minister promised us changes in the Lords. That is why we did not push to a vote the amendments tabled in my name and the names of other right hon. and hon. Members at that stage. However, I am afraid that the promise did not materialise in the House of Lords, and only now, with amendments in lieu, are we seeing some concessions at this late stage, which, frankly, is not good enough. That is why, I am afraid, there is some scarcity of trust  in the assurances given from the Dispatch Box, rather than stuff written, prima facie, in the Bill, or in specific guidance linked to undertakings in the Bill. We need to see more details in the Bill, not just assurances from the Dispatch Box, which have not always been forthcoming.
In changing the law, we need to comply with a clear set of principles when we are dealing with vulnerable children. Children should be treated differently from adults. Any child in the United Kingdom is entitled to the same protections whether they arrive on a boat or they were born here. Whether we like it or not, a child is a child and, as such, should be subject to the safety of the Children Act 1989, which is as relevant today as it was when it was first legislated for.

Jeremy Corbyn: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I absolutely agree with the point that he has just made. This also fits in with the 1989 convention on the rights of the child, which the British Government very rapidly and quite correctly signed up to at that time. Withdrawing from that convention surely weakens that protection.

Tim Loughton: The paramount piece of legislation in this country is the Children Act 1989. We should be proud of it, as it is copied and envied the world over. That is how we in this country look after children who need the protection of the state for an assortment of reasons. In my book, the Children Act—I always carry it with me, and i have it here today—usually trumps everything else.

Edward Leigh: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Tim Loughton: I will, but I do not want to take too many interventions, because many others wish to speak.

Edward Leigh: We know from the people who arrive in hotels that perhaps 20% of the migrants will be children—or say they are children. We know that that will be the case among those who arrive at RAF Scampton. As the Government are talking about 2,000 people coming here, we may need 40 or 50 social workers, which we cannot afford in Lincolnshire. We do not have the resources to look after these people properly, to assess them, to work out whether they are children and to decide how they are going to be looked after. Is my hon. Friend not making the point that it is much better to disperse people rather than to shove 2,000 illegal migrants in one place?

Tim Loughton: My right hon. Friend has ingeniously inserted into this debate his particular constituency interest, of which, I think, the entire House and the entire world is aware, and I have some sympathy with him. I agree that there is a problem with dispersal. The dispersal system is not operating properly in this country, which is why Kent in particular, which is at the forefront, has seen more than 600 children come through already this year, of whom many are still within the care of Kent. One local authority cannot be expected to deal with that; we need a better dispersal system, whereby the support services, as well as the fabric, are able to accommodate these children.
There is a specific problem with adults impersonating children. The Home Office’s own figures say that something like 47% of age-disputed children turn out to be adults, which means that 53%, a small majority, turn out to be actual children, although it has not published the evidence for those findings. The JCHR report quotes the Helen Bamber Foundation survey of 2022, which stated that 70 local authorities had had 1,386 young people referred to them, of whom 63%—almost two thirds—were found to be children.
It is really important to have effective and accurate age assessments, and it is really important to do them quickly. The Government assured me that they were bringing forward age assessments. They take, on average, six weeks—I do not know why they take six weeks; it should not take that long to do a Merton assessment and, potentially, some X-ray medical interventions as well. The Government need to speed up that process. If a child is wrongly assessed as an adult and deported, that cannot be corrected.
We have problems with hotels and missing children—I recognise that. We have problems with children potentially going underground as they approach their 18th birthday, as they may well be transported out of the country under the Bill. We have problems with 16 or 17-year-olds, or those purporting to be 16 or 17-year-olds, absconding if they are not in the secure estate. These are the complex problems that the Government have to face.
We also have a problem with the existing law, as there is just 24 hours to detain children for the purposes  of transporting them out, which is not enough. We  therefore have a lot of problems. However, Government amendment (a) to clause 12 in lieu of Lords amendments 31, 35 and 36 leaves clause 10, which had a lot of Henry VIII powers leaving decisions up to the Secretary of State, largely untouched. The Government’s amendment in lieu retains the position that bail cannot be granted for 28 days to those who fall within the Bill’s scheme. It retains that position for unaccompanied children too where they are being detained pending a decision to grant leave, limited leave as an unaccompanied child, discretionary leave or leave as a trafficking victim.
That means that for the purposes of initial processing, unaccompanied children will be in exactly the same position as anyone else who falls within the Bill’s scheme, that is, there is no statutory limit on their detention and they cannot be granted bail before 28 days. Unaccompanied child arrivals are to be treated the same way as adult arrivals in terms of their detention for initial processing, and the amendment provides nothing for unaccompanied children detained for that purpose. It would only allow for potential bail of an unaccompanied child who has been detained pending a decision to remove them or pending their removal, where the Government are using their discretionary power under clause 3(2) to remove an unaccompanied child while they are still under 18.
In those circumstances, which the Government contend will be the minority of cases, the unaccompanied child will, with this amendment, now have the opportunity of being granted bail after being detained for eight days. Whether in practice the child could apply for bail after day eight would depend on multiple factors, one key factor being whether the unaccompanied child had been transferred to local authority care and subsequently detained prior to removal, or had only ever been detained since arrival in the UK.
Other factors impacting whether bail is obtainable in practice would include where the child was detained, whether any outside services reached the child in detention, whether such services could refer to a lawyer with the capacity to take on the bail case in light of the failure of the legal aid market and legal aid advice, and whether the child has the capacity to instruct a lawyer. There are strong reasons to doubt whether the possibility of bail after day eight would necessarily lead to many, if any, unaccompanied children being released from detention in practice.
There is a currently nothing on the face of the detention clauses about age disputes, which I was assured there would be. There are no additional safeguards for them on the face of the Bill at all. A putative child who is treated as an adult would only be able to get bail after 28 days in line with the Bill’s detention scheme. Much of what I say is on the advice of Coram, which is highly respected for how it looks after unaccompanied child asylum seekers.

Robert Jenrick: I thank my hon. Friend for giving me advance notice that he planned to raise the interaction of clause 12 and clause 10. If I may answer his point briefly, the amendment in lieu relates to the powers to grant immigration bail, so amending clause 12, which is the power to grant immigration bail, is the correct place to set out the eight days. The detention powers themselves remain the same. That provides additional judicial oversight of unaccompanied children. The reason for amending clause 12 is that it is the clause that prohibits the first-tier tribunal from granting bail until 28 days have elapsed from the first day of detention. There is no need to amend clause 10 to give effect to that policy change. Clause 10 deals with the powers of detention and says nothing on bail. I hope that that answers his concerns, but I am happy to follow up with him later if he would like.

Tim Loughton: I think we may have to, because that is certainly not my understanding. There are Henry VIII paragraphs in clause 10 that still give ultimate discretion to the Secretary of State, with or without what is going to happen to clause 12. I am afraid that is symptomatic of the continuing problems with the Bill. It has become so complicated, there are many double negatives within it and only last night, at about 7.45 pm, did the Government publish their amendments, which we had just a few hours to scrutinise before today’s debate.
This matter needs proper explanation and it has not been properly explained. The assurances that we were promised have not materialised—or, if they have, I am afraid no one understands them. On that basis I am afraid that we, and I hope I speak here for many on the Government Benches, cannot take these amendments in lieu at face value. More work needs to be done. I hope this House will make sure that this matter goes back to the Lords in order for further concessions to be given. Clause 10 certainly needs to be overhauled.
If we go back to the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009, there was a clear duty on the Secretary of State. Section 55(3) states:
“A person exercising any of those functions must, in exercising the function, have regard to any guidance given to the person by the Secretary of State”
for that purpose. There is no such undertaking in this Bill about having to observe and abide by guidance. Why not? Perhaps the Minister will come back to that in his response later.
The Minister keeps referring to the Detention Centre Rules 2001. They certainly need an overhaul, but I repeat my earlier point: they are all about things such as clean clothing, access to nutritious food, respect for religion, family visits and so on. Where are the special provisions for support services specifically for children, the child psychologists, access to social workers and other child support? That is what age-appropriate accommodation and support means—not just a suitable house that, without wishing to labour the point again, may or may not have cartoons on the walls.
Also, the Government have to admit that although those detention laws have been in place since 2001, that did not stop young children, and young children with families, being detained, for upwards of two weeks in some cases, at Manston, and certainly not in age-appropriate accommodation. Frankly, I am afraid that the system is not working now, yet we are looking to dilute the age-appropriateness of what is now on offer. That is where we on the Conservative Benches have serious concerns, and it is not just us: many children’s charities are concerned, and the Children’s Commissioner said:
“The Home Office has still not been able to provide me with vital information I have requested about the safeguarding of children in their accommodation. I am therefore unclear about how they can make informed assessments about the impact of the Home Office accommodating children without having this data.”
We were led to believe that there would be clear distinctions for children who are clearly and genuinely children: they would be detained for no more than eight days on the way in as well as, potentially for a few, on the way out; they would have age-appropriate accommodation; and there would be some form of foster care, children’s homes or whatever it may be. There would then be differential accommodation for those for whom there is an age-verification question mark. We do not know if that accommodation exists, what sort of accommodation it will actually be, or how we will separate adults from those who turn out to be children.
The Minister assured us that if age-appropriate accommodation was not available for that subset, they would be treated as children and subject then to the lesser restrictions on genuine children. That is not in the amendment and it is still not in the Bill. What and where is the available accommodation for children and for disputed children? What is the legal status of detained unaccompanied children during that eight-day period, where it applies to them? What local authority duties apply on arrival and for the eight days, and what is the Home Office responsible for in those eight days? Do the children retain looked-after status while detained, or does the Home Office propose that that status ceases, as with a custodial sentence?
Those are, I am afraid, all the questions to which we needed answers, but we are still in the dark with the amendments tabled in lieu, which is why we just cannot support them. This is a far cry from the undertakings in the Immigration Act 2014, which states:
“An unaccompanied child may be detained under paragraph 16(2) in a short-term holding facility for a maximum period of 24 hours”.
In the absence of a suitable amendment in lieu covering all those considerations, as promised, I am afraid that we must oppose the amendment in lieu. Although it would revert to Baroness Mobarik’s amendment to return to the 24-hour status quo, which is not practical, I agree—we will have to come up with something more—that is all that is on offer at the moment.
I will be very brief, Madam Deputy Speaker, because I have broken my pledge. I was pleased that we got safe and legal routes on to the face of the Bill, and that some concessions were made in this place on the understanding that they could be beefed up in the House of Lords. That is what the noble Baroness Stroud’s amendment would do. Clause 59 only accepts a duty to produce a report—a work that requires consultation with local authorities. That should be happening now; it should have started months ago, so saying, “Oh it is going to take several months; we need to do the consulting” is nonsense. That work should already have started.
All the clause amounts to is a loose assurance that something will come in by the end of next year, and it is not in the Bill. The Baroness Stroud amendment seeks to make regulations come in within two months of the report. As she said on Report, her amendment
“is designed purely to place a duty on the Government to do what they say they intend to do anyway—introduce safe and legal routes”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 5 July 2023; Vol. 831, c. 1248.]
That goes beyond just reproducing a report on how they might do it.
That is what we need to see, and it is why I will vote against the amendment in lieu of the child detention. I will vote in favour of the Baroness Stroud amendment on safe and legal routes. I will certainly not repeat everything that was said by my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), but she made a strong case, and I am tempted to follow her into the Division Lobby on the Randall amendment as well. Those are the three main areas. There is still much more work to be done on the Bill, so that is how I will vote, and I urge hon. Friends to do the same.

Rosie Winterton: I remind Members that the debate has to finish at 5 o’clock, so please bear that in mind when making speeches. I call Dame Diana Johnson.

Diana R. Johnson: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker; I will try again.
I want to start by agreeing with the Minister about the vital role that the other place plays as a revising Chamber in asking us to look again, particularly when we have not had pre-legislative scrutiny of a draft Bill and when, as I think most Members would agree, this legislation has been rushed through Parliament. I echo the comments of the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) about how complicated the Bill has got and the fact that we have not had much time to consider the amendments tabled by the Government late last night.
I also want to say at the outset that, in our report on small boats last year, the Home Affairs Committee made it very clear that it was not the number of people coming across in small boats that has overwhelmed the  asylum system but the failure to process the asylum applications that have been made over a number of years. The Home Office has allowed the backlog to grow—it is now over 170,000—which has the effect of gumming up the system, and that is why we are spending £7 million a day on hotels. I know that the Home Office has in train plans to deal with the backlog, and the Prime Minister has said that the legacy backlog will be cleared by the end of the year. We all want to see that happen; it is in no one’s interest to see that backlog grow even more.

John Hayes: The right hon. Lady is right about processing being a key part of dealing with the backlog, but Lords amendments 7, 90 and 93 would allow for further legal challenges, create more delays and, in her words, gum up the system to an even greater degree than it is now. Surely she does not support that attempt to undermine the principles of the Bill and add to the very problem that she is articulating.

Diana R. Johnson: What I want, and what the Home Affairs Committee has been very clear about, is an efficient, speedy asylum claim process that is fair but timely. Germany, for example, has far more asylum claimants than we have and manages to process its claims within seven months. Many of the people who claim asylum in this country are waiting for years. That is why we have got ourselves into the problem that we are trying to address through the Bill.

Paul Bristow: Will the right hon. Lady give way?

Diana R. Johnson: I will, but I am conscious of time.

Paul Bristow: I wonder whether the right hon. Lady can explain how doing nothing about thousands of undocumented people landing on our shores week in, week out will help speed up the Home Office system.

Diana R. Johnson: I say to the hon. Member with the greatest respect that he might want to look at the Home Affairs Committee report on small boats, published last summer, in which we made a number of key recommendations for how the Government could start to address the small boat problem, one of which was, as I started off by saying, addressing the backlog. We know that people can come to this country, disappear and feel that their claims will not be heard for years. That is not in anyone’s interest. If he takes the time to read the report, he might get some idea of the recommendations that we have put forward cross-party, including a pilot to allow processing in France, to stop people making that perilous journey across the channel.
I turn to the Lords amendments. First, I want to deal with the removal of retrospective application under Lord Carlile’s amendment. I am really glad to see that the Government have agreed to remove the retrospective element of the Bill, with Royal Assent as the start date, which means that there will not be an immediate backlog of people waiting to be deported. However, this could provide a false sense of security about the Bill’s implications.
It seems to me that when the Bill becomes an Act, a new backlog will be quickly growing, with thousands of people detained if we see the same numbers coming across in small boats that we have seen in the last few weeks and months, and we have no third country to send them to. With the Court of Appeal judgment now  being appealed in the Supreme Court, we do not know whether the Rwanda plan will be lawful. So far this year, over 12,500 people have made that dangerous channel crossing to the UK. There may well be hundreds more arriving each month once the Bill is enacted, and I am concerned about what happens to them.
Even if the Rwanda plan ultimately gets the green light, the Government have yet to provide any evidence of the number of people who could be sent there—that is not clear. In fact, I was looking at documents relating to the Home Office’s business plan yesterday, and the Home Office was working on the assumption that just 250 people would be removed to a third country each month, yet 3,824 people crossed the channel in June this year alone. As such, on top of the current backlog of asylum applications that I just talked about—which now stands at over 170,000—the Government could see the creation of yet another backlog, one of people stuck in detention potentially awaiting a flight to nowhere. That concerns me.
I want to comment on the subjects of modern slavery and trafficking, because the Home Affairs Select Committee is currently in the middle of an inquiry into trafficking. I agree with all the comments that were made by the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May). Take the example of a sex trafficking victim, perhaps tricked by the right hon. Lady’s analogy of the lover-boy model—a woman trafficked from abroad into the UK to be raped by men for money. We on the Committee heard that this happens every day in almost every hon. Member’s constituency through the use of adult service websites such as Vivastreet. As the Home Secretary confirmed to me at the Home Affairs Select Committee last month, under the unamended Bill, if that woman came to the attention of the authorities, she would be subject to arrest and deportation if she had been brought into the United Kingdom through illegal routes. Indeed, anyone subjected to trafficking or modern slavery in the UK who was transported here illegally would face a similar fate.
In her evidence to the Home Affairs Select Committee inquiry on human trafficking, the right hon. Member for Maidenhead provided a frank assessment of the Bill’s likely consequences:
“The Illegal Migration Bill risks people being left in or consigned to exploitation. They will be fearful of seeking help, because the traffickers will use this legislation to control them further, and they won’t trust the authorities…I believe if the Illegal Migration Bill is enacted as it is currently proposed, it will leave more people in slavery unwilling to come forward to UK authorities.”
That is quite stark from the midwife of the Modern Slavery Act 2015, and one who has done so much to promote the United Kingdom as a beacon for tackling the scourge of modern slavery and trafficking.
The Children’s Commissioner has provided a similar assessment of the Bill’s implications for child victims of modern slavery:
“These victims will be incentivised to avoid seeking support and help, out of fear of deportation.”
It must be right that when a victim of trafficking or modern slavery is found, they are given the help and support they need, not detained and deported. That is why Lords amendment 6 and its consequential amendments  must remain in the Bill, ensuring that all trafficking and modern slavery victims have access to the support and protection they need.
I will now turn to the subject of children. The hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham, who has extensive knowledge of this area, has raised a number of really important points that I hope the Minister will be able to respond to. As we know, the Illegal Migration Bill will overhaul our immigration laws for the purpose—we are told—of deterring people who arrive via illegal routes. I would say that the measures proposed in the Bill are rather blunt, unforgiving and undiscriminating, meaning that anyone whose journey here was not state sanctioned will be subject to detention and deportation, regardless of whether they were fleeing war or were trafficked. We are now debating the rights and wrongs of those proposals, and in this House, there are people who think those measures are absolutely the right thing to do and people who are opposed to them.
However, the overriding message of Lords amendments 8, 31 and 33—one that should unify us all—is “Leave children out of it.” The plea is: “Do not scrap what we already have as modest safeguards against further harm and exploitation of vulnerable children. Do not drop the existing time limits for detaining them. Do not bar them from accessing support provisions for modern slavery victims. Do not refuse to consider their claims for asylum, and for those children who arrive in the UK on their own and are taken into care, do not mark their 18th birthday by issuing them with a deportation notice, having refused to consider whether they should be granted permanent sanctuary.” As leading children’s organisations, including Barnardo’s and the Children’s Society, say:
“It is cruel and simply unworkable to have looked-after children spending their formative years in the UK without the Government even considering their protection needs.”
While the Government have made a concession on the detention of unaccompanied children, I am concerned that what this actually amounts to is that those children can apply for bail after eight days in detention, but there is clearly no guarantee they will be granted it. As has been said already, it is for a small cohort of children and it also requires access to legal advice. Lords amendments 8, 31 and 33 do nothing more radical than preserving existing child protections, and those amendments should remain in the Bill.
On Lords amendments 37 and 38 tabled by Baroness Lister, it should have been an absolute no-brainer to retain the 72-hour limit on detaining pregnant women. When the prisons and probation ombudsman conducted a review of the welfare of vulnerable people in detention in 2016, he concluded:
“I have not sought further evidence that detention has an incontrovertibly deleterious effect on the health of pregnant women and their unborn children. I take this to be a statement of the obvious.”
Yet we have had to spend time in Parliament debating whether the Government should keep the cap on detaining pregnant women at 72 hours or be allowed to detain them indefinitely. Bear in mind that, back in 2016, the then ombudsman recommended that the detention of pregnant women should end completely.
It could never seriously be argued that removing the time limit for detaining pregnant women was necessary for deterring illegal migration. We know that introducing  the time limit did not prompt swathes of pregnant women to make the dangerous channel crossing. Indeed, it was revealed during the Bill’s passage in the Lords that,
“since January, no pregnant migrant women have arrived in this country illegally.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 3 July 2023; Vol. 831, c. 1011.]
The organisation Women for Refugee Women points out that
“the restrictions placed on pregnant women’s detention since 2016 has not had an ‘incentivising’ effect for women claiming asylum in the UK.”
While the benefits of detaining pregnant women indefinitely are hard to see, the costs are all too clear. The Royal College of Midwives points out:
“There is incontrovertible evidence that pregnant asylum seekers have poor pregnancy and neonatal outcomes and complicated pregnancies with increased morbidity and mortality… The detention of pregnant asylum seekers increases the likelihood of stress, which can risk the health of the unborn baby.”
The Government introduced time limits on detaining pregnant women for a reason in the first place, and that reason has not changed. On the concession that they have granted, which is that pregnant women can be detained for no more than 72 hours without ministerial approval, which could then go up to seven days, as I understand it—perhaps the Minister can help me with this—that could result in a woman being detained, being released and then being detained, being released and being detained, because this does not say it is just a one-off.
Finally, I support Lords amendments 102 on safe and legal routes. It is clear that giving a two-month period for the Government to come back with a plan of implementation for safe and legal routes is a very sensible measure. The Home Affairs Committee made it clear in our report that safe and legal routes was one of the clear recommendations the Government should adopt if they seriously want to tackle the small boats problem. I also support Lords amendment 103 on the National Crime Agency and organised immigration crime enforcement, which I think is a very useful and helpful amendment, and Lords amendments 104 and 107 from the Archbishop of Canterbury on the 10-year strategy on refugees and human trafficking, which I again think would help the Government in dealing with the small boats problem.

Laura Farris: I will begin with Lords amendment 2, which would remove the retroactivity provisions that state that the Bill would apply to anyone who arrived on or after 7 March 2023, which is the date that the Bill was introduced in the House. There is a good reason generally why we do not allow legislation to apply retrospectively: so that there is legal certainty and people are bound only by the obligations that apply at the time. I accept without reservation that the law would be in disarray, for example, if new criminal offences had retrospective effect and people found themselves criminalised for things that they could not possibly have known to be unlawful at the time.
I respectfully submit, however, that this is not that kind of point. There is no principled argument to be made. First, the Government made it clear that the date the Bill was introduced was the same date on which it would become effective. Secondly, a person cannot argue  in any compelling way that they decided to make an illegal crossing to the United Kingdom in March because they believed that they might end up in a hotel in Southampton, but now that they know they might have ended up going to Rwanda, they would not have made the illegal crossing. I am afraid that that argument does not work at all. I accept the Government’s position that the only way in which the policy will have the desired deterrent effect is if it has retrospective effect, so that we do not create perverse incentives for people smugglers to surge the crossings immediately before the Bill receives Royal Assent.
The second tranche of Lords amendments includes those that the Immigration Minister identified as wrecking amendments—amendments 1, 7, 90 and 93—and I will deal with them collectively. Lords amendment 7 seeks to strike out clause 4(1)(d), which states that removal should take effect irrespective of whether there is a judicial review application. Lords amendment 90 seeks to strike out clause 52, which states that interim orders may not halt deportation. Lords amendment 93 seeks to strike out removal pending an age verification appeal.
There is a wider point about those amendments. Collectively, they seek to dilute the deterrent effect of all removal provisions. Whatever we disagree on in this Chamber concerning current migration, we can probably achieve a consensus on one point: this situation will not get any easier to resolve. Whether the UNHCR is correct in saying that there are 100 million displaced people, or whether there are tens of millions, the reality is that famine, climate change, flooding and conflict will result in more and more people leaving their countries of origin to try to come elsewhere.
Any nation that tries to resolve the situation in its domestic arrangements will have to follow a strategy similar to the one that the Government are pursuing. The first element of that strategy is to decide on a cap for admissions and then—likely with UNHCR support in the future—to give proper consideration in advance to who should come under the quota scheme. The current schemes that are working very well in relation to Ukraine, Afghanistan and Hong Kong provide a good starting point. The second element is to deter all illegal migration by ensuring, with only the narrowest of exceptions, that an individual gains absolutely nothing from doing this.
The objective of the Illegal Migration Bill and, by extension, the Rwanda scheme is to remove illegal immigrants quickly without prejudice to their wider right to challenge the deportation order later, because the rationale is that speedy deportation deters others from coming to the country. Many eminent people agree with that proposition. As the former Supreme Court Justice, Lord Sumption, said in his foreword to Professor Ekins’ recent paper for Policy Exchange:
“This objective is frustrated if deportees are able to hold up their removal for years while their challenge goes through potentially three tiers of appeal followed by a petition to Strasbourg. The process commonly takes years.”
He continued by stating that “whatever one thinks” of the Rwanda scheme, if
“interim measures are available in cases like this, it is probable that no legislative scheme for the prompt removal of illegal immigrants”—
could ever “succeed.”

John Hayes: My hon. Friend is making a well-made argument, and she is right about those amendments from the Lords that are designed to undermine the principle and practice of this Bill. Would she extend to legal migration her sensible suggestion that the safe and legal routes recommended by various people across the Chamber need to be capped? We cannot continue to grow our population to the tune of 600,000 a year without placing unbearable pressure on our public services, making the provision of housing impossible and changing the face of our country forever.

Laura Farris: I will come back on two points. First, under the Bill, annual quotas will be decided upon with the consent of various local authorities that will be responsible for accommodating those people, and that is the right approach. On illegal migration, people arriving through irregular routes should not take precedence over those arriving lawfully through safe and legal routes. We could not allow a system where one displaces the right of the other, and that is a feature of this Bill.
The second thing I want to talk about is the effect of judicial reviews. Lords amendment 7 would permit judicial reviews. I cannot improve on the language used by David Blunkett when he was Home Secretary, introducing Labour’s flagship immigration Bill, the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, which was supported at the time by the shadow Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper). I wanted to refresh my memory of what he said on Second Reading, because it was a powerful part of his speech. He said:
“At the moment the system is virtually unworkable. People can bring a judicial review during the process of the initial appeal, and when they reach the right to appeal to the tribunal they can judicially review the tribunal for not allowing the appeal to the tribunal. They can then judicially review the tribunal’s decision and they can judicially review whether they are entitled to go to the court of appeal following failure at the tribunal. The whole system is riddled with delay, prevarication, and, in some cases, deliberate disruption of the appeals process. Then they can judicially review the decision on removal even when the appeals have been gone through.”—[Official Report, 24 April 2002; Vol. 384, c. 355.]
We have simplified the system a bit since then, but effectively he is right. He was right then to seek to effect removal after one right of appeal had been exhausted, and the Government are right now to aim for swift removal without judicial review holding everything up.
My final point, briefly, is about the speech that the former Supreme Court Justice Lord Brown made on Second Reading of this Bill in the Lords. He sat as a Cross-Bench peer, and he died on Friday. He said:
“No doubt the Bill can be improved in various ways, but we must recognise that almost every amendment we make to soften it can tend only to weaken its essential objectives: stopping the boats… We really must…give the Government the opportunity by this Bill finally to confront this most intractable of problems.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 10 May 2023; Vol. 829, c. 1806.]

Tim Farron: I start by referring Members to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests for the support I receive from the Refugee, Asylum and Migration Policy project.
Despite their lordships’ best efforts, this remains in my 18-plus years in this place comfortably the worst piece of legislation I have seen come to this House. That is not because I disagree with it—I have probably disagreed  with most stuff in my 18 and a bit years here—but because it is based on several bogus understandings of the truth. Within it, there is a deplorable bias towards the inhumane.
To start with Lords amendment 1, we have an attempt to get the Government to do something massively radical: to comply with international obligations. The notion that we should not do that, or that we do not need to do that, is based upon the desire to depict the current situation—the boats situation and the asylum situation in the UK—as an emergency. I will come to that in a moment.
The two likely consequences of the UK habitually choosing to not comply with its international obligations are: first, that we become a pariah, and are seen internationally as not a team player, and thereby we are less effective in all parts of our policy around the world, whether economic, defensive or otherwise; and, secondly, that others will copy us and, as a consequence, the whole system breaks down. I often hear Members on the Government Benches say, “France is a safe country, why don’t people stay there?”. The simple answer to that is, “Yeah, it is. So is Spain and so is Italy.” If we end up in a situation where other people copy us, the whole network breaks down and we end up in a desperate situation. If we care about our position internationally, we need to care about that.
Let us turn straight to the Government’s justification for not complying with their international obligations, including issues to do with modern slavery and child detention, on which the Lords has made helpful amendments. Their explanation is that the situation constitutes an emergency. Does it? In the Home Secretary’s words, we are currently being swamped by refugees. Let us look at some facts to see whether either of those things bears any scrutiny. As we speak, Germany takes four times more asylum seekers than the United Kingdom, and France takes 2.5 times more asylum seekers than the United Kingdom. If we were to add the United Kingdom back into the European Union for statistical purposes, just 7% of asylum seekers would come to the UK and, per capita, the UK would be 22nd out of 28. Demonstrably, the United Kingdom has not faced an especial problem. We are not being swamped, and such language is demeaning of this country and of the office of Home Secretary.
The Government say, “Ah, but it’s different here, because we’ve taken in 250,000 Ukrainian refugees as well as those coming in through other routes.” I am utterly proud that the United Kingdom has been among those countries who have taken in the most Ukrainian refugees, but we have not taken the most. Germany has taken 1 million Ukrainian refugees and, as I said, it still takes four times more asylum seekers than us, and Poland has taken 1.5 million Ukrainian refugees. It appears that talking about our support for Ukraine and Ukrainian refugees is an excuse for the Government in seeking to avoid their international obligations.
Britain’s problem needs to be put into overall context. The reality is that 70% of the millions of displaced people and refugees on planet Earth flee either to a different region of their country or to a neighbouring country. A steadily decreasing trickle of people end up at the end of the line—and, my goodness, the United Kingdom, over the channel, is the end of the line. Again, for us to state that we face an especial emergency  in terms of the numbers of people coming here is totally bogus. It is important to state that and put it on the record.

John Hayes: I am astounded to hear the hon. Gentleman’s speech. I sometimes come into this place and think that I am in a parallel universe. I do not know whether he gets out much, but if he speaks to his constituents as often as I speak to mine, he will know that they do see this as an emergency. One hundred thousand people have crossed the channel on small boats, with every one of them knowing that they have arrived here illegally, and he will know that we are spending £6 million a day on 300 hotels to accommodate them. If that is not a crisis or an emergency, I do not know what is.

Tim Farron: I will come to the emergency, which the right hon. Gentleman set out towards the end of his remarks—the emergency caused by Government incompetence in not clearing the backlog. When we look at the numbers coming to our shores—I am sure he knows this as he has seen the figures—we see that statistically, compared to other countries of similar size and stature, the United Kingdom is not overwhelmed. What we are overwhelmed by is the consequences of the Government’s own incompetence.
I will wager, dare I say it—I am not a betting man—that I speak to my constituents more than the right hon. Gentleman speaks to his, and my constituents represent the values of the United Kingdom. They believe that it is right to provide sanctuary to those who present as refugees and that, in any event, even if those people are not refugees, we will only ever know that if we process them properly, which is what a competent, decent British Government would do.

Tahir Ali: I have received hundreds of emails from my constituents. Does the hon. Member agree that the Bill will lead to more misery for thousands of refugees, cost taxpayers millions and cause chaos to a system that is already on the brink of collapse?

Tim Farron: Yes, I think it will. I was visiting a hostel for people seeking asylum in this country a few months ago in Cumbria. One gentleman had been an interpreter for the British and American forces in Afghanistan, and we had left him behind. By hook or by crook he got himself here, and he had been waiting more than 12 months for his case to be heard. He got to the stage where he almost did not care if he got kicked out; he just wanted a resolution. That is miserable. Those people are getting the blame, from this Government and some of their supporters, for the consequences of the Government’s own failure and incompetence. That is shameful. I would be ashamed of that if I were sitting on the Government Benches. I know that some are, to their credit.
Talking of shameful things, let me move on to child detention and Lords amendment 8. As at least one Government Member rightly said, one of the great achievements of the coalition Government was the ending of child detention under a Conservative Prime Minister. Those on the Government Benches should be proud of that. The Refugee Council estimates that the Government’s proposals would potentially lead to 13,000 children being detained as a consequence of this legislation.
The real question for the House—for the country, actually, but for Members here in particular—is, do we see a child asylum seeker primarily as an asylum seeker to be deterred or as a child to be protected? If the answer is not the latter, I am sorry, but shame on you. An argument is made by some that if we do not detain children—by the way, teenagers are children too, as I am a parent of several—we will create a pull factor. The fact is that the Joint Committee on Human Rights has demonstrated that there is no evidence for that whatsoever. Even if there were some evidence for not detaining children being a pull factor, in what moral universe would it be okay for the Government to use children as collateral to achieve their policy aims? Again, that is outrageous.
On modern slavery and Lords amendments 6 and 56, the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), who is no longer in her place, made an outstanding speech. She introduced the modern slavery legislation as Prime Minister. This Government talk about enacting many of the things in this legislation as enacting the will of the people and carrying out their mandate. As a former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member had a mandate, which I am sure the whole House supported, to deliver that modern slavery legislation. I am proud of that, as should she be. How does that mandate not trump the apparent mandate to put those victims of modern slavery at such terrible risk?
The simple fact is that if someone is a victim of trafficking and modern slavery, because of the Bill and the failure to accept the amendments put forward, that person’s choices are to remain in exploitation, or go for prolonged detention or removal to Rwanda or some other country. For many victims of trafficking and exploitation, remaining in exploitation will seem the least worst option. Far from being an attempt to tackle evil gangs, the Bill plays into their hands. This is a traffickers charter.
Throughout the Bill we see the rhetoric of crisis, emergency and of our being overwhelmed. We are, indeed, overwhelmed—by the Government’s epic incompetence. Some 177,000 people are waiting for an initial decision. Those people do not want to be in hotels; they want to be processed. If the Government wanted to bring about a real deterrent, they would process people efficiently like other countries somehow manage to do, and they would return the ones who are not refugees. That would be a deterrent, but it is beyond the Government’s competence.
According to the Government’s own figures, of the top 10 nationalities of people presenting as refugees here, 80% are granted asylum. Even the Government’s own processes accept that they are genuine refugees, even though others characterise them in terrible and unflattering ways. Some 83% of them are from Sudan and 99% are from Eritrea. That is crucial, because there is no provision in the Bill whatsoever for those people to come here safely. It is so important that we tackle the issue of safe routes. A Government who were really serious in trying to stop the boats would do carrot and stick, so to speak.
The fact is this: desperate people will take dangerous routes until safe routes are available. If people have fled terror in whatever country—many are from the horn of Africa and have fled through the absolute hellhole that is Libya these days, and then crossed the Mediterranean—  then I am sorry, but we are not going to deter them from taking a relatively short journey across the channel unless we provide safe routes. That is why the Government need to put safe routes on the face of the Bill. If they were trying to solve this problem holistically, they would make sure that safe routes were part of the Bill.
Briefly, on Lords amendment 9, in the name of my noble friend Lord German—[Interruption.] I am concluding—I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker. Lord German’s amendment would prevent people from remaining in limbo. If the Government proceed with the Bill and cannot remove arrivals to Rwanda in time, the amendment would ensure that anyone who is still here after six months would be entered into the asylum system. That would be humane and would also prevent a greater backlog.
This is an emergency, but not compared with other countries. There is an emergency in that there is a global refugee crisis, yet there have been zero attempts, in any mature way, to make an intelligent, informed response to that international emergency—the opposite, in fact. What that does is alienate our allies who might help us to tackle it. Instead, we have an ill thought out attempt to tackle one symptom. The political emergency here is the Government’s desire to lash out, seeking culture war points and blaming desperate people for the Government’s own incompetence. The underlying attempt throughout the Bill is to make the UK unattractive. It is stupid to think—[Interruption.] I am finishing—I am sorry, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is stupid to think that the rest of the world does not hear, and that only potential asylum seekers hear that. It undermines Britain’s reputation in the world. Patriots care about how we are seen around the world. That is why patriots oppose the Bill.
Finally, the percentage of people in this country convinced by the Government’s position on this issue is reducing by the day. They see it as a distraction from the fact that they cannot afford to pay the rent or the mortgage, or to feed their kids. The ultimate tragedy of the Bill is that it completely ignores the overriding problem. It will not fix the symptoms it identifies and it will not even give the Government the political benefit they crave, which is the one thing in this debate that constitutes justice.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Rosie Winterton: It is quite important that we think of others and remember that, as I said, the debate finishes at 5pm. I call David Simmonds

David Simmonds: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I will endeavour to be swift and to the point. Like the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron), I must draw the attention of the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as someone who is sponsored by the Refugee, Asylum and Migration Policy project—RAMP—to provide research capacity.
As the Minister outlined, the UK has proved willing to rise to the challenge of the international refugee situation, with 550,000 people settled in the UK through humanitarian routes. In 24 years in a local authority  covering the area of Heathrow airport, I certainly have experience of being on the receiving end of many different sets of Government policy—not just from the coalition and Conservative Governments, but from Labour Governments, too—many of which sounded very good when debated in this place but which did not always work in contact with the real world. I would express the concern that until we have a fully comprehensive asylum visa system, we will not have full control of the way in which we interact with the global refugee situation.
I want to see this policy pass through Parliament and be implemented in a way that works operationally to stop the boats and deliver all the other objectives that Members throughout the Chamber broadly support. There are clearly plenty of disagreements about the detail, but none of us wishes to see the continuation of the cross-channel traffic in human misery and criminal activity that the Bill seeks to address. I know that my constituents share the concern, beautifully expressed earlier, about the fact that we, as British people, believe in the fine old British tradition of queueing. When we see people using criminal means to jump that queue at a time when our country is seeking to be more compassionate through resettlement in a global world, we are concerned about that.
I remain concerned about a number of aspects of how the Bill will operate in the real world. It is enormously positive that the courts decided, having considered the matter, that the Rwanda policy was lawful and compatible with the UK’s international human rights obligations, but we cannot provide sufficient evidence of the effectiveness of one element of our agreement with Rwanda. That element is one example of the things that could, operationally, derail what we all agree are worthy objectives in the Bill. I took part in the Joint Committee on Human Rights evidence session that considered modern slavery in detail, and that has convinced me to follow the lead of my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) this evening.
We need to ensure that we live up to the standards we have set for ourselves in this House, and that the positive obligations that much legislation, including the Modern Slavery Act 2015 and the Children Act 1989, places on our public authorities do not undermine the objectives of the Bill. Detention is a good example of that. I totally agree with what the Minister said about his approach to the detention of unaccompanied minors. A major challenge for Hillingdon Council was the arrival of unaccompanied children at Heathrow airport. The right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) will know that many of them were accommodated in his constituency, at Margaret Cassidy House and at Charville Lane children’s home, both of which I visited.
It was at the point of arrival that those children were at the greatest risk from traffickers. The right hon. Gentleman will remember examples of traffickers arriving on Bath Road to collect girls whom they had targeted for trafficking. We as the local authority were powerless to stop that, because there was no power of detention that we could use to keep those young people safe. In one case that I am aware of, Hillingdon recovered a girl from the sex trade on the continent of Europe, after six months of tracking her from place to place. During that time, she suffered a great deal of abuse, which potentially could have been prevented if we had been able to intervene more swiftly at the beginning.
I am entirely sympathetic to the Minister’s motivations for introducing provisions on that issue, but these questions need to be answered: who will ensure that the places where those children are accommodated and detained are of an appropriate standard? What discussions have taken place with local authorities, such as Hillingdon and Kent, to ensure that a secure estate, based perhaps on secure children’s homes, is available, so that the children coming through the system can be appropriately accommodated? What arrangements have been made with Ofsted—in my view, it is Ofsted, rather than the chief inspector of prisons, that needs to regulate this—to ensure that regulation will give us confidence that the accommodation for children, and for families, is appropriate for children?
Finally, I have asked this question many times, but I do not get the sense that we have reached an appropriate answer. The Bill sets out how individuals are to be dealt with under the asylum and immigration process, but it does not take away the obligations on local authorities under the Children Act, the Children (Leaving Care) Act 2000 or the Modern Slavery Act, or the other many obligations on local authorities. Members will say, “Let us pass this legislation and demonstrate that we are tough, and wish to stop the boats,” but in six months, will we be looking at a slew of judicial reviews that say that the policy was in conflict with the obligations on local authorities and the police under the Modern Slavery Act and the Children Act, and is therefore not effective?
If the Minister wishes to enjoy the full confidence of all Conservative Members, and wishes them to vote with the Government tonight and over the next few days, I urge him to address those points. Literally decades of policies from Governments of all parties have not quite managed to get to the heart of these issues. He must demonstrate that this policy will do that, and that it has properly covered all bases across government. He must demonstrate that the policy does not leave us vulnerable to finding that the boats do not stop coming; that the frustration of the challenges continue; and that people continue to die. This country wishes to show that it will not walk on by and ignore the needs of refugees, that we will be compassionate, and that we will prioritise our resources on international and global resettlement.

John Martin McDonnell: I, too, want to focus on the issue of children. The hon. Members for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) and for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) discussed the coalition Government effectively banning the detention of children in 2014, which we all welcomed. I was part of the campaign to achieve that ban, because of my experience of the detention of children in Harmondsworth detention centre in my constituency. I visited those children, and when we explained to the world what they were going through, how they were traumatised and what impact that was having on them and their families, the world recoiled. We decided we would never have such a regime again, but my fear is that, gradually and incrementally, we are reverting to it. That is why I support Lords amendments 8, 50, 51, 31, 33 and 89.
First, I am concerned that we are bringing forward legislation that makes it inadmissible for unaccompanied children who come via the channel route to apply for asylum. Yet 96% of them, I think, actually get refugee status, which shows what need they have.
I am also worried about what happens to children who are detained. I am concerned that we are potentially reverting to the brutal regime of the past. When children were detained in detention centres and even other accommodation, the mental health impact was gauged as extremely severe, and it was lasting. Today, we have seen the amendment that the Government have brought forward on the time limit for detention, increasing it from 24 hours to eight days—as others have said, it is eight days before someone can apply for bail to a first-tier tribunal. My worry is that, in that very vulnerable period of their life, a child will be detained and trapped in the system, and the issue then is, detained where?
I raised the use of Harmondsworth with the Minister, and he gave me an assurance that that is not Government’s intention or the ministerial intention. I am sure that it is not this Minister’s intention, but Ministers and Administrations change. Unlike with the 2014 legislative commitment that we got, I do not believe that Government statements of intention are sufficiently strong to prevent us from reverting, unfortunately, to the detention of children in unsuitable accommodation and even detention centres. The reason we supported local authorities taking these traumatised children into care was that they have the range of expertise to provide them with the support they need. I am worried that we are reverting to type; time and again, we have explained in the House that the Home Office accommodation that has been provided is inadequate, as we have seen as a result of the number of children who have gone missing, some of whom have not even been found again.
I do not want to delay the House, because others want to speak, but I feel that the Bill is a reversion to pre 2014, and that is the result of the Government’s failure to take into account the range of views expressed in this House and elsewhere. It is the most vulnerable who need our support—our succour and our kindness—the most. The children are the ones who will probably suffer the most as a result of this legislation, and that is why I urge those in the other House to hold to their task of bringing some light of humanity to the discussion of this issue. I hope they will hold to their amendments so that this appalling Bill can at least be in some way ameliorated.

Anna Firth: I rise to speak in support of the Government amendments in lieu of Lords amendments 2, 12, 20 and 22 and also Lords amendment 38, on pregnant women. I also want to touch on Lords amendment 104, which I oppose.
People in Southend West want a tough but fair policy on illegal immigration that stops people unfairly jumping the queue, stops evil people smugglers and, above all, stops vulnerable people drowning in the channel. Those, in a nutshell, are the reasons why I support this Bill, subject to the amendments I have just alluded to.
I reject entirely the characterisation we have heard from Opposition Members that we are, in some way, an ungenerous country. I believe we should all take pride in the UK’s rich history of rehoming some of the world’s most vulnerable and persecuted people. The Minister reminded us that we have taken more than 550,000 refugees from around the globe since 2015—the highest number since the second world war—including 100,000 Ukrainians, but people in Southend West do not think this generosity and humanitarian spirit should be extended to healthy  young men from safe countries who have paid people smugglers to help them illegally cross the channel. That is what the Bill is all about.
The Minister reminded us that about three quarters of people crossing the channel last year were men over the age of 18. From 2021 to 2022, the number of Indian nationals crossing to the UK on small boats increased by over 900% from 67 to 683. India is a democratic country with its own space programme. More than 1,000 Turkish citizens came to this country illegally last year, but Turkey is a safe NATO country to which almost 2.5 million British nationals a year go on holiday. There is no reason whatsoever why Indians and Turks should be coming here illegally. There are schemes under which we would welcome them to come here legally.
Of course, this is deeply unfair on taxpayers and on those who come to this country legally. To put this point into perspective, the Government won a huge majority on a promise to level up this country, yet we now have a bizarre situation in which we are spending more each year on hotels to accommodate illegal migrants—estimated at £2.2 billion, or more according to the shadow Minister—than the Government’s entire budget for round 2 of the levelling up fund and three and a half times what we are spending on homelessness. This is unsustainable and deeply unfair on the vulnerable people in this country who need our support.
We have heard it said that this is not an emergency. It will absolutely become an emergency. Lord Hague wrote of Africa and the middle east in The Times today:
“If only one in twenty of the people of that region migrated by mid-century—surely a conservative estimate—there would be 140 million people on the move.”
That would be a complete emergency, so our migration system must send a clear message that people will not be allowed to come here illegally.
The Lords have sent us reams of amendments to consider, many of which are designed to frustrate the will of the people who put us here and to kick the issue down the road. That leads me directly to Lords amendment 104, in the name of the Archbishop of Canterbury. A 10-year strategy is all fine and well, but we need action now. We see on our television screens that people are drowning in the channel now. Of course the Government are working very hard on a long-term strategy, because other countries in Europe are facing the same problem, hence they are working with France, Italy, Albania and the EU. I reject the approach suggested by Lords amendment 104, as it is already happening and it is not addressing the emergency before us.
However, I am pleased that the Government have accepted some amendments, particularly on retrospection. There is a strong presumption in common law that statutes do not take retrospective effect, most recently summarised by Lord Kerr in the Supreme Court in Walker v. Innospec Limited and others:
“If we do something today…the law applying to it should be the law in force today, not tomorrow’s backward adjustment of it.”
In other words, retrospective laws undermine our rule of law, which requires that the law is capable of being known and enforced today.
I understand why it was thought that retrospective effect was needed, but those reasons do not apply now that the Rwanda issue needs to be resolved by the Supreme Court. I am therefore very pleased that this sensible amendment has been taken on board and that we will fall in line with this long-held legal principle.
The second issue relates to pregnant women. Obviously, protecting them is vital, and we must do everything we can to ensure that vulnerable pregnant women are not exploited or targeted by evil people smugglers. Last year, fewer than 1% of the illegal migrants who came to this country were pregnant, and I understand that this year the figure has been none. So we have to be incredibly careful that we do not create a perverse incentive that might inadvertently increase that number. We must be extremely aware that the people who would traffic women to this country are utterly without morals, so we do not want to find ourselves in a position where women become pregnant deliberately, or even worse are made pregnant against their will, in order to bypass detention rules. The Government’s amendment allows us to protect vulnerable pregnant women, ensuring that they do not spend unduly long periods in detention before they are processed. It strikes the right balance between treating these women with dignity and compassion, and not creating a perverse incentive that would target vulnerable women.
In conclusion, although our compassion in seeking to help people may be infinite, the people of Southend know that our capacity to do so is finite. That capacity to help is fundamentally undermined if we do not stop the boats and we do not stop people entering this country illegally.

Jeremy Corbyn: I shall be brief, Madam Deputy Speaker, because we do not have much time, although there is a great deal I could say on this Bill. There could not be a greater contrast than the one between the cold, calculating speech we have just heard from the hon. Member for Southend West (Anna Firth) and the humanitarian approach taken by the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) in trying to defend international law and humanitarian principles in what we do.
This Bill is appalling in so many ways, but it is walking us rapidly away from the European convention on human rights and, with it, the European Court of Human Rights; from the 1951 Geneva convention protecting the rights of asylum; from the 1954 convention protecting people who are suffering from statelessness; from the 1989 convention on the rights of the child; and from the 2005 trafficking of children convention. That is why I strongly support Lords amendment 1, which was introduced by Baroness Chakrabarti to try to reverse this whole process. If we walk away from international conventions that this country knowingly and willingly signed up for—indeed, we drafted many of them—who are we then to criticise Turkey, Hungary, Poland, Russia or any other country where we believe there is a breach of those convention rights? What protection would we be offering to people we know are already being badly treated and whose only protection is the rights that come through those conventions? The Government are cynically and deliberately doing this.
I attend the Council of Europe as one of our representatives, and I have to say that Members of the Council of Europe from many countries—these are not  necessarily people of the left, by any manner of means—are astonished at how Britain is walking away from all these conventions that it promoted in the past. The response from those at the Council of Europe is consternation about why we are doing that. It is consternation at the endless attacks on the European Court of Human Rights and on the European convention on human rights, which protects the rights of people in this country as well as other countries around the world.
This did not all come from nowhere; it came from the hostile environment, deliberately created by the Conservative party and the coalition Government, which had such a devastating effect on the Windrush generation. It comes from constant media references to the “asylum wave” and the horrible stories that are written about people seeking asylum. As the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale, my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) and others have pointed out, the number of asylum seekers in Britain is low compared with that in the rest of Europe, and the number in Europe is low compared with that in the rest of the world.
Why are there 70 million people around the world not in a place they can call their own home? The answer is: wars; human rights abuse; and environmental degradation. What are we going to do? Are we going to put up barbed wire everywhere, send gunboats everywhere, in order to try to deter desperate people? Or are we going to do something about it by trying to improve the living conditions of people in places that they are trying to flee from and improve their human rights situation? I have met people in Calais, and I have met people in this country who have come from Calais. Believe me, they are desperate. There are people who have managed to walk, almost, from Eritrea or Afghanistan. They have crossed the Mediterranean and other seas and gone through immense danger. They are looking for a place of safety—and what do we offer them? Nothing more than a hostile environment and being sent to Rwanda. Should we not look at this thing a bit differently? Should we not look at it from a humanitarian point of view?
Should we not also give refugees here the right to work? We have 100,000 vacancies in the NHS alone and a skills shortage in almost every industry, and we have highly skilled, highly intelligent people who could no longer stay in the country they came from and are looking for a place of safety. Perhaps we could be slightly more humanitarian and decent about this and accept that we have a responsibility.
We should accept that our country is enriched by those who have come here with their skills, knowledge and determination to create a better society, rather than passing this tawdry little Bill, which may well be rejected again by the Lords—I hope it is—and by the courts, knowing full well that even if the Home Secretary’s dream of sending so many people to Rwanda were carried out, they could not be housed or processed there. Can we not just turn the dial round for once and, instead of maintaining the pretence that this country was always friendly to people who are desperate, let us prove it and show that we are supportive and welcoming of desperate people who want to contribute to our community?

Tom Hunt: I will speak to Lords amendments 2, 12, 20 and 22, on arrangements for removal, to Lords amendments 31, 33 and 35 to 38, on  arrangements for those under the age of 18 and for pregnant women, and to Lords amendment 102, on safe and legal routes.
Where the Government have given some ground on the Lords amendments and entered into discussion, I feel confident that the main ethos of the Bill is still there. I was really keen to ensure that. I did not want to see the Bill watered down. I liked what I saw when it left this place, and I did not want to see it weakened and made unable to deliver.
On under-18s, my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Paul Bristow) made the good point that we do not want a situation where there is a perverse incentive for young people to be sent by themselves. That is concerning to both of us. Age verification needs to be robust. We know that there is evidence of adults—particularly adult men—pretending to be under 18 when they are not. No one in this House wants to see children detained, and that was never the Government’s intention, but at the same time we cannot allow an opening for people who are not under 18 to get special treatment.
The Chair of the Home Affairs Committee, the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson), said that there has not been enough time to scrutinise the Bill. This is an urgent situation. The Bill was introduced early this year. It appears to have been stuck in the other place for a huge amount of time; I understand that they have been up until 6 in the morning looking at it. I do not know how much longer the right hon. Lady would like this place and the other place to scrutinise this piece of legislation that needs to be implemented urgently.
I find it deeply frustrating when I see individuals who have never had to live with the consequences of uncontrolled mass migration and illegal migration, and people who have never had to talk to constituents who are desperately concerned about the situation—they may have hotels in their constituency that have been adversely impacted by it—opining and moralising about what they think is right and demonising anyone who supports a Bill such as this.
As I have said many times before, the House of Lords should tread carefully, because it is unelected. It is oh so tempting to moralise on this deeply complex issue without engaging in any plan, and there is no plan from the other House. Lords amendment 102 would introduce uncapped safe and legal routes. What would happen if we had alternative safe and legal routes that people could apply to? If they were uncapped, they would fill up incredibly quickly, and if they were capped, the cap would be met incredibly quickly and we would be back at square one. We would still have people entering our country illegally. What would we do then? That is not a plan.
Let me turn to Labour’s five-point plan of vagaries and platitudes—because that is what it is. All we hear about are safe and legal routes. Then there is the cross-border police force—as if that has not already been looked into. Labour Members say, “We have to do more to talk to France”. Again, it is as if we are not already doing that. It is as if the Prime Minister does not already have a good relationship with the President of France; he has, but we still are where we are.
Ultimately, this is an incredibly difficult situation. This can only work with the Rwanda plan. I hope that, when it comes to that Supreme Court judgment, the Rwanda plan will get the green light. However, the Government need to plan for the eventuality that that might not happen. There needs to be a plan B. We cannot put all our eggs in the Rwanda basket. I am confident that the Rwanda plan can make a significant contribution to tackling this problem, but I and many colleagues also believe that there needs to be a plan B.

John Hayes: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Tom Hunt: I am sorry, but I will not be taking any interventions.
Ultimately, what Brexit was about in many respects was taking back control of our borders, and controlling the migration system. If it gets to a point where we feel that, even having delivered Brexit, the popular sovereignty of the people’s wish to decrease net migration and tackle illegal migration robustly is impossible, it is only right that we then look at the legal infrastructure and the different arrangements that this country is subject to. We must listen to the British people, the vast majority of whom do support this Bill. They want to see it enacted and I will be supporting the Government every step of the way. I really hope that, before we get to the summer recess, this vital Bill gets Royal Assent.

Patrick Grady: When the Minister was first appointed, I thought that he was largely going along with the Home Secretary’s language and policy on refugees and asylum seekers out of a sense of loyalty and collective responsibility. But as this Bill has progressed, it appears from the statements he has made in the Chamber and the responses he has given to questions and to Westminster Hall debates that he really has drunk the Kool-Aid. I think he genuinely believes the Government’s rhetoric: that this country is being invaded, that people who come here fleeing war, persecution and famine are actually economic migrants on the make, and that outright hostility and denial of their basic human rights is the only way to dissuade them from coming here. So hostile does he want the environment to be, he will not even allow a splash of colour and cartoons on the walls of the family reception centres. It is more than disappointing. It is worrying that the Government’s attitude seems to be that the way to stop people coming here from countries where they are at risk of oppression and human rights abuses is to create an environment that is at least as hostile as the place from which they are fleeing.
That would explain the Government’s opposition to Lords amendment 1. The safeguards that it provides should otherwise be seen as absolutely essential, and make it clear that nothing in the Bill requires the Home Secretary to break with international human rights law and the treaties and convention that this country has been signed up to for decades. Nowhere in the Conservative manifesto was there a commitment to take the UK out of these conventions, so their Lordships have every right to continue to press this and similar amendments during the next stages of their proceedings.
The Chair of the Justice Committee said earlier that this was an incorporative rather than an interpretive amendment. Perhaps the Lords will come back with  something in lieu that will be more attractive to the more level-headed elements on the Conservative Back Benches. But then perhaps that is what the Government have been looking for all along—the Government want a fight with the House of Lords, they want a fight with the Supreme Court and the Home Secretary certainly wants an excuse to withdraw from the European convention on human rights. Those perhaps are the real purposes of the Bill, and the impact on refugees and asylum seekers is really only secondary.
It is ridiculous that we are being asked to consider these amendments barely 24 hours after the Lords gave the Bill its Third Reading. It shows the Government’s contempt for both Houses of Parliament. The explanatory notes and the amendment documents were only available through the Vote Office at 7.45 last night, as the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) said, and yet the Government are proposing 58 motions to disagree with the Lords in their amendments this evening. If that is not picking a fight, I am not sure what is. Well, let us have that fight. Let us vote on all 58 of them and then see how desperate the Government and their Back Benchers are to get this Bill on to the statute book.
Almost all the amendments made in the Lords speak to a basic humanity and respect for the rule of law and the fundamental principles of the global asylum system. That is essentially what the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury’s amendment 104 calls for. Government Members may wish to wish those Lords away, but they are supposed to support the House of Lords and the system that exists. If they want to pick away at it, that is fine, because I do not think there should be a House of Lords in its current form.

John Hayes: I do not understand the hon. Gentleman’s argument. On the one hand, Opposition Members say that the Government are not doing enough, that they need to deal with the backlog, take action and be more decisive and radical. When the Government do become decisive, however, we are told that they are rushing the House, that they are going too fast and that we need more time, more machinations, more prevarication and more delay.

Patrick Grady: The Government are going about this exactly the wrong way, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry said earlier in one of her interventions. Many Lords amendments, especially those from the Lord Bishops, propose ways to deal with the backlog and provide safe and legal routes. Those are the amendments that the Government want to vote against.
In their increasingly desperate and craven pandering to what has become the Government’s electoral base, and to those elements on their Back Benches who have been returned to this House by that electoral base, the Government seem increasingly prepared to walk away from or even rip up conventions and treaties that past Conservative Governments and Ministers once had a hand in drafting. Once again, they are using their majority to simply override the considered proposals from a House of Lords that they nevertheless want to continue to pack with their donors, cronies and assorted time-served loyalists.
Among those amendments was yet another Dubs amendment, Lords amendment 8, under which unaccompanied children would essentially continue to have the right to claim asylum in the United Kingdom and the Home Secretary would not be able to declare them inadmissible. That is what the Home Secretary wants to be able to do—to declare young children inadmissible for asylum and leave them essentially in a kind of limbo in the UK until they are old enough to be sent back to where they came from, or perhaps to Rwanda or anywhere else that the Government can pay enough money to and hopefully get a court to declare is safe.
All that is supposed to have a deterrent effect and make the UK a less attractive place to seek sanctuary, but it is not working. The Bill has failed at its first hurdle. Clause 2 of the Bill was supposed to retrospectively apply its provisions to the day it was introduced to the House, 7 March 2023, and that was supposed to start to stop the boats. That was going to create the great deterrent effect, and it simply has not worked. The Government are dressing up their proposals in lieu of Lords amendment 2 as some sort of grand compromise, but in fact they are simply acknowledging the reality that backdating the Bill was not working and maintaining the clause would only create a greater backlog of cases for processing, at even greater expense to the public purse.
Of course, it would be better if many of the powers granted, and duties required of the Home Secretary, by the Bill did not come into force at all. The Lords were not content with Lord Paddick’s amendment to decline to give the Bill a Second Reading when it was first debated in their House, but there is still an opportunity to stop this Bill, perhaps in its entirety. There are mechanisms through double insistence or further amendments in lieu to dramatically reduce, delay or even halt the provisions of this Bill.
The SNP has never taken seats in the House of Lords, and I hope it never will, but for Opposition Members in particular who defend the role that it plays in the UK’s constitution, surely this is the time to call for it to play that role to the fullest extent. The Government have no mandate for the Bill and no mandate to undermine human rights agreements that have underpinned the world order since 1945. If the Lords will not stand up on those issues, then what is even the point of the House of Lords? If the Government are so committed to getting this Bill through, they have the Parliament Acts at their disposal, or they can put their proposals to the public in a general election.
However, in any future general election I am confident that people in Glasgow North will continue to vote to be part of a country and a society that recognises the duty we have to the poorest and most vulnerable, that reciprocates the hospitality and sanctuary shown to generations before us who left our country for other shores, and that says, “Refugees are welcome here.” If that country is not the United Kingdom, it will be an independent Scotland.
Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 1.

The House divided: Ayes 303, Noes 228.
Question accordingly agreed to.
Lords amendment 1 disagreed to.
Proceedings interrupted (Programme Order, this day).
The Deputy Speaker put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that time (Standing Order No. 83F).
Lords amendment 2 disagreed to.

Clause 4 - Disregard of certain claims, applications etc

Motion made, and Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 6.—(Robert Jenrick.)

The House divided: Ayes 303, Noes 227.
Question accordingly agreed to.
Lords amendment 6 disagreed to.
Lords amendment 7 disagreed to.
Motion made, and Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 8.—(Robert Jenrick.)

The House divided: Ayes 299, Noes 228.
Question accordingly agreed to.
Lords amendment 8 disagreed to.
Motion made, and Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 9.—(Robert Jenrick.)

The House divided: Ayes 304, Noes 228.
Question accordingly agreed to.
Lords amendment 9 disagreed to.
Lords amendment 12 disagreed to.
Lords amendments 20 and 22 disagreed to.
Government amendments (a) to (o) made in lieu of Lords amendments 2, 12, 20 and 22.

After Clause 6 - Restrictions on removal destinations: LGBT persons

Motion made, and Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 23.—(Robert Jenrick.)

The House divided: Ayes 297, Noes 231.
Question accordingly agreed to.
Lords amendment 23 disagreed to.

Clause 10 - Powers of detention

Lords amendment 30 disagreed to.
Motion made, and Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 31.—(Robert Jenrick.)

The House divided: Ayes 290, Noes 242.
Question accordingly agreed to.
Lords amendment 31 disagreed to.
Lords amendment 32 disagreed to.
Motion made, and Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 33.—(Robert Jenrick.)

The House divided: Ayes 299, Noes 227.
Question accordingly agreed to.
Lords amendment 33 disagreed to.
Lords amendments 34 to 36 disagreed to.
Amendments (a) and (b) proposed in lieu of Lords amendments 31, 35 and 36.—(Robert Jenrick.)
Question put, That the amendments be made.

The House divided: Ayes 284, Noes 242.
Question accordingly agreed to.
Amendments (a) and (b) made in lieu of Lords amendments 31, 35 and 36.
Lords amendments 37 and 38 disagreed to.
Government amendments (a) to (e) made in lieu of Lords amendments 37 and 38.

Clause 11 - Period for which persons may be detained

Motion made, and Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 39.—(Robert Jenrick.)

The House divided: Ayes 300, Noes 229.
Question accordingly agreed to.
Lords amendment 39 disagreed to.
Lords amendments 40 to 49 disagreed to.

Clause 16 - Transfer of children from Secretary of State to local authority and vice versa

Motion made, and Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 50.—(Robert Jenrick.)

The House divided: Ayes 294, Noes 228.
Question accordingly agreed to.
Lords amendment 50 disagreed to.

Clause 21 - Provisions relating to removal and leave

Lords amendments 51 to 55 disagreed to.
Motion made, and Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 56.—(Robert Jenrick.)

The House divided: Ayes 285, Noes 243.
Question accordingly agreed to.
Lords amendment 56 disagreed to.
Lords amendments 57 to 67 disagreed to.

Clause 38 - Serious harm suspensive claims: interpretation

Motion made, and Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 73.—(Robert Jenrick.)

The House divided: Ayes 297, Noes 227.
Question accordingly agreed to.
Lords amendment 73 disagreed to.
Lords amendment 74 disagreed to.
Government amendment (a) made in lieu of Lords amendments 73 and 74.

Clause 52 - Interim Remedies

Motion made, and Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 90.—(Robert Jenrick.)

The House divided: Ayes 295, Noes 228.
Question accordingly agreed to.
Lords amendment 90 disagreed to.
Government amendments (a) to (c) made to the words so restored to the Bill.

Clause 55 - Decisions relating to a person’s age

Motion made, and Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 93.—(Robert Jenrick.)

The House divided: Ayes 296, Noes 220.
Question accordingly agreed to.
Lords amendment 93 disagreed to.
Motion made, and Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 95.—(Robert Jenrick.)

The House divided: Ayes 295, Noes 220.
Question accordingly agreed to.
Lords amendment 95 disagreed to.
Government amendments (a) and (b) made in lieu of Lords amendment 95.

After Clause 58 - Duty to establish safe and legal routes

Motion made, and Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 102.—(Robert Jenrick.)

The House divided: Ayes 282, Noes 234.
Question accordingly agreed to.
Lords amendment 102 disagreed to.

After Clause 60 - Organised immigration crime enforcement

Motion made, and Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 103.—(Robert Jenrick.)

The House divided: Ayes 291, Noes 222.
Question accordingly agreed to.
Lords amendment 103 disagreed to.

Roger Gale: Seconds out, round 17.

After Clause 60 - Ten-year strategy on refugees and human‘ trafficking

Motion made, and Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 104.—(Robert Jenrick.)

The House divided: Ayes 290, Noes 222.
Question accordingly agreed to.
Lords amendment 104 disagreed to.
Lords amendment 107 disagreed to. Lords amendments 3 to 5, 10, 11, 13 to 19, 21, 24 to 29, 68 to 72, 75 to 89, 91, 92, 94, 96 to 101, 105, 106, and 108 to 114 agreed to.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83H(2)), That a Committee be appointed to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to their amendments 1, 6 to 9, 23, 30, 32 to 34, 39 to 67, 93, 102 to 104, and 107;
That Robert Jenrick, Scott Mann, Shaun Bailey, James Sunderland, Stephen Kinnock, Gerald Jones and Alison Thewliss be members of the Committee;
That Robert Jenrick be the Chair of the Committee;
That three be the quorum of the Committee.
That the Committee do withdraw immediately.—(Rebecca Harris.)
Question agreed to.
Committee to withdraw immediately; reasons to be reported and communicated to the Lords.

Business without Debate

Delegated Legislation

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Sanctions

That the Russia (Sanctions) (EU Exit) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2023 (S.I., 2023, No. 665), dated 15 June 2023, a copy of which was laid before this House on 19 June, be approved.—(Rebecca Harris.)
Question agreed to.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Financial Services

That the Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing (High-Risk Countries) (Amendment) Regulations 2023 (S.I., 2023, No. 704), dated 26 June 2023, a copy of which was laid before this House on 26 June, be approved.—(Rebecca Harris.)
Question agreed to.

Adjournment (Summer, Conference and Christmas Recess)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 25),
That this House, at its rising on Thursday 20 July 2023, do adjourn until Monday 4 September 2023; at its rising on Tuesday 19 September 2023, do adjourn until Monday 16 October 2023; and, at its rising on Tuesday 19 December 2023, do adjourn until Monday 8 January 2024.—(Rebecca Harris.)
The Deputy Speaker’s opinion as to the decision of the Question being challenged, the Division was deferred until tomorrow (Standing Order No. 41A).

Liaison Committee

Motion made,
That, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 145, the Liaison Committee shall have power to appoint specialist advisers in relation to its inquiry on Strategic thinking in Government.—(Rebecca Harris.)

Hon. Members:: Object.

Increasing Employment: Training

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Rebecca Harris.)

Siobhan Baillie: I have two main points to land. The first is that the best way for someone to get work-ready and improve their life chances is to get a job and progress in the job they have. The second is that we need a clear-eyed look at existing training provision, including the apprenticeship levy, to provide thousands of jobs in small and medium-sized enterprises, which are the backbone of the country. I am thinking particularly of the jobs and businesses in the Stroud district.
Many moons ago, a boss told me that I had bouncebackability. That was a polite and positive way of noting that I get up every time I mess up and fall flat on my face, which is pretty often. That boss changed my life. Being a free school meal kid from a chaotic single-parent family and leaving home at 15 means you basically get written off. The statistics say that you are in trouble, but that does not have to be a given, as my story will testify.
I started work as a secretary. Over time, the firm saw something in me and got me into a training programme. I attended night school and law school at weekends; it took a long time, but I qualified as a solicitor. I had no debt and I had years of experience under my belt. However, I hid all of that for a long time, because I was embarrassed. Most lawyers go to university, and Tony Blair had rammed it into all of us that university was the only way forward. I was wrong to be embarrassed and he was wrong to have such a narrow focus. I did not understand that all my jobs—paper round, supermarket checkout girl, aerobics teacher and spinning instructor, which were all done to pay law school fees—and years at the coalface of work had equivalent value to a degree. I was wrong, and I am happy to admit it, because I have bouncebackability.
The best way to be work-ready and life-ready—to grasp the chances that come across your desk—is to actually go to work. Social mobility is not just about poor kids getting into Oxford; for workless families, a parent holding down any job will improve the social mobility of their children. Becoming a manager or retraining into a second career is social mobility in action. Sadly, however, snobbery about further education and having no degree continues to this day. To see that we need only look at Carol Vorderman’s attack on my right hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Johnny Mercer) and his wife, where she said in a tweet:
“not a degree in sight…who’d employ them?”.
That is the latest example of nonsense; dismissing a Minister who works tirelessly for the armed forces and veterans for not having gone to university is bad enough, but being deliberately condescending about the lives of millions of people who did not go to university is unforgiveable. I used to admire Carol Vorderman a lot, before she decided to eat so much political hate for breakfast to get social media hits. Now, sadly, I just feel sorry for her.
Thankfully, this Government recognise the quality of life that employment and training can bring, and it is absolutely at the heart of our growth strategy. Despite the global economic turmoil, the UK still has its lowest unemployment since the 1970s, at 3.9%, and the fourth  highest employment rate in the G7. I give credit to the Stroud jobcentre and the Department for Work and Pensions team, which the Secretary of State visited. They are doing an incredibly amount locally, taking a bespoke, careful look at how we help people off long-term sick and into jobs.
In The Sun yesterday, Matthew Elliott, the president of the Jobs Foundation, wrote about how securing a full-time salaried job cuts the risk of falling into poverty by 90%. He explained:
“Productive and meaningful employment gives us an opportunity to learn and develop our skills. It allows us to afford a better standard of living…and brings structure and routine which helps mental health and wellbeing.”
At a time when a fifth of people are not confident about their financial position, millions rely on their job. Jobs, training and in-work development are therefore the gold standard. I set up the all-party parliamentary group on the future of employability to explore this issue further after a decade of discussions about education with my friend Ronel Lehmann, who founded Finito, which helps young people get work-ready. The APPG has also been backed by the Institute of the Motor Industry and the Wise Group, which are incredibly helpful in thinking through how we can make people get into jobs and stay in them.
I turn to my second issue: I believe that we need a clear-eyed look at existing training provision to help SMEs and to help people stay in jobs. The Government are stealing a march on creating lifelong learning opportunities. There are a range of training programmes, including skills bootcamps, sector-based work academy programmes —SWAPs—the Multiply programme supporting adult numeracy, and free skills for jobs courses. Returnships are basically all of the above along with apprenticeships, but for people over 50 returning to work or seeking a career change.
However, I have a challenge for the Minister. I do not believe that we need new-fangled policy or legislation. We have everything we need. I do not want any more fancy-pants new schemes; we need to reform the ones we have. We need to accept that good products such as the apprenticeship levy require changing to make them business friendly. We should not scrap them but improve them.
Take returnships, for example. More than 500,000 over-50s have stepped away from the workplace post pandemic, so I completely understand the focus on that age group, but with the rise of technology such as artificial intelligence, it will be people in their 30s and 40s who may need to change employment. Let us tweak that policy and see who else we can help.
So much depends on the efficiency of the apprenticeship levy. I listen carefully to organisations such as the Federation of Small Businesses, to businesses such as Renishaw and BorgWarner in my constituency that have apprentices, and to local companies that desperately want apprentices. Many feel that the system is just not working for them.
I appreciate that this is strictly a Department for Education issue, but it is crucial to employment, so I am grateful that the Minister for Employment will be responding to the debate. Every apprenticeship is a job with bells on, and it so often leads to a long and  meaningful career. It is also cheaper to the taxpayer, given that the Government had to write off 44% of student loans in 2021-22.
The DWP and the Treasury are grappling with the issue of economic inactivity and the millions on out-of-work benefits. I respectfully believe that, along with the Department for Education, they need to take a keen interest in the apprenticeship levy and listen to what Stroud district employers, the Association of Colleges and chambers of commerce all over the country are telling us. It cannot be right, as UKHospitality points out, that one of my local pubs cannot transfer its levy to another pub in the same chain, and that the levy will just disappear back into the Treasury if it is not used. We can make changes to make this thing work better for business.
Let me turn to some clever bits. I cannot take credit for them; they came from the brains at Policy Exchange—I recommend the report by Iain Mansfield and Toby Hirst, “Reforming the Apprenticeship Levy”—and from my local college, SGS Stroud, which asked me to cover many of Policy Exchange’s recommendations. Before I come to my recommendations, I will outline a few points for us to have in the back of our brains.
Over the last five years, £4.3 billion has been raised by the levy but then not spent on apprenticeships. A recent report by UCAS and the Sutton Trust found that 430,000 students were interested in apprenticeships but only 5,000 a year are starting degree-equivalent courses. I have a university technical college in my patch, which was started by my predecessor, Neil Carmichael. I went there with Lord Baker. We had its students—young women science, technology, engineering and maths students—up here this week saying that they are desperate for apprenticeships but they cannot find one. These are young people with brilliant minds. We have to get them into the jobs that they want.
We know that learning on the job is attractive to people of all ages. Learning at an older stage in life in an apprenticeship, so that we can earn and learn, is crucial to those of us with families and mortgages who need or want a career change. Yet unfortunately, the total number of apprenticeship starts has gone down to 349,000 in 2021-22, which is significantly below the 393,000 in 2018-19, and lower than the high of 500,000. Therefore, while the quality has definitely gone up, the starts are something that we need to look at, because they matter.
The number of starts in SMEs has fallen by almost 50%, but small employers all over the shop, many of which I speak to locally, want to train up their own workers. As Policy Exchange explains in detail in its report, the requirement to pass English and Maths at level 2, which is a GCSE equivalent, means that somebody can be barred from achieving an apprenticeship qualification in bricklaying, childcare or IT due to a lack of achievement at school, which may have been years or decades ago. We desperately need these workers. I am fighting campaigns about childcare workers, so what is happening at the moment is madness.

Robin Millar: I am very taken by what my hon. Friend is saying about the ordinariness—if such a word exists—of the training needs. In my own constituency, which the Minister has been kind enough to visit, tourism and hospitality are the major employers. I see on an almost daily basis employers in hotels, pubs  and restaurants talking about how they are trying to offer employment to the young as a first job, to those in middle age who want something more flexible, to those who are returning to the workforce at an older age, and—I say this as the Minister for Employment is here—increasingly to those who are perhaps on the edges of employment in conventional settings. A little more effort and a bit of help from the Department for Work and Pensions makes them suitable for the work environment. Does my hon. Friend agree that the packages and the help that the Government offer need to be applicable in those very ordinary and routine settings?

Siobhan Baillie: I absolutely do agree, and I welcome the intervention. The reality is that talking about these everyday jobs—jobs that we desperately need in every single one of our constituencies—is key to impressing on the Government why these changes are needed. The bureaucracy and the pain in the neck that come with trying to work through the apprenticeship levy are actually putting off quite a lot of small businesses. They do not have the extra department to do the paperwork for them. However, Policy Exchange and I have some ideas about that.
There are loads of recommendations in the report, but I have picked out a few that would really push forward on this. The first would be to transform the levy into a growth and skills levy. That would allow employers to spend up to 25% of funds on high-quality employer-relevant skills training, including shorter and more flexible courses. On my hon. Friend’s point, this is about flexibility for everyday businesses and everyday people.
Secondly, we want to see a £3,000 incentive for every young apprentice trained by an SME to help support smaller businesses with off-the-job training costs. We also think that there need to be course finishing bonuses to make sure that we encourage learners to go all the way through. The adult learning budget is a fraction of the tertiary education budget, so I would like to see some funding made available for that. I would view it as levelling up skills and jobs around the country.
Thirdly, we need to create SME roles and hubs at colleges and growth hubs to support SMEs in dealing with the bureaucracy and the recruitment of apprentices. We have regional schools commissioners, so why not a regional apprenticeship facilitator—an RAF? I am sure the actual RAF will have something to say about that, but why can we not provide these regional support systems?
Fourthly, we could abolish the apprenticeship minimum wage, with all apprentices to be paid the national minimum wage for their age. I recognise that that is a Treasury matter and that we are not flush with money in this country—nor indeed is any country in the world right now—but in financially constraining times youngsters will choose a job in a supermarket that pays more than an apprenticeship. That is not only because they need the cash, but because apprenticeships are hard graft. We need to reward them—it will help all of us. I would also like to see the immigration shortage occupations list linked to skills training. Employers should be able to use the levy to fund qualifications to help them to train up local talent instead of being forced to rely on immigration.
I would like to know what the Minister, with his employment hat on, thinks of those proposals. Will he tell us about what DWP is doing to use employment to improve the life chances of people of all ages, and to make the UK’s existing training provision work for small and medium-sized businesses? I want training and education to work for work.
Before the Minister responds, I will make a short note on work placements. The APPG on the future of employability is looking at how we can increase the numbers of work placements available and allow people to gain experience at any time of their life. A constituent told me today that his daughter had an incredible work placement last week at Steller Systems in Nailsworth. It is a naval architecture company, so that is quite cool. She had a brilliant time learning with the staff in a highly specialist area; they did not need to give their time, but they did, and she will no doubt benefit from that for the rest of her career. We need to normalise those opportunities throughout the country.
On a final note, there were some empty Stroud noticeboards at Lansdown Hall during the pandemic, which were covered in the local newspapers. One of them said:
“The best way to learn anything is by doing it. Model some clay, carve a piece of wood—or a carrot! Sculpture can be made out of anything, I think it’s a question of finding a material and visual language that speaks to you.”
I say, “Over to you, Minister, to sculpt your response.”

Guy Opperman: Good news today: vacancies are down, employment is up, economic inactivity is down and my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Siobhan Baillie) has brought forward a crucial debate that could not be more timely.
We start from a situation where we have created over 5,450,000 apprenticeships since May 2010. That is an astonishing figure, well over 5 million, and it is something to be celebrated. However, I take the tone of my hon. Friend’s debate to be both a celebration of what the Government have done, rightly lauding our efforts to get more people into employment, a celebration of the apprenticeship levy and the clear successes it has brought to this country, and a desire to do better. That is something that I utterly endorse.
I am fortunate that I am responding for only one Department. I think I would probably need to respond on behalf of the Treasury, the Department for Education, the Department for Business and Trade and various other Departments that my hon. Friend rightly cited, but, bluntly, I am happy to set out the position as best I can. I endorse what she says about the Policy Exchange report, which is eloquent and well-made and makes some very good points. She and I have also spoken in the past to the Chair of the Education Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr Walker), who only a couple of months ago brought forward a specific Education Committee report looking at further education and post-16 education, all of which should be noted by the House.
It is unquestionably the case that upskilling our workforce is the most important thing. We need to do that not least because we are trying to reduce unemployment and improve social inclusion, productivity and progression.  I made two visits to the beautiful constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Aberconwy (Robin Millar) a little while back to see the work that is done by the DWP in his part of the world. I was on the phone to them this afternoon in respect of cases in Ynys Môn and the work that our hon. Friend the Member for Ynys Môn (Virginia Crosbie) is doing to try to deal with the issues in Llangefni. The staff there are fantastically committed to transforming the outcomes that we all hope for.
I was also privileged to visit the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud, to meet Tom Robinson from the business Adaptavate and go around his factory. That was in my former life as a pensions Minister; I then enjoyed a brief 49-day holiday as a Back Bencher before returning in this present role, where I hope I can contribute some further matters.

Robin Millar: I simply want to compliment the Minister on his visit to us, for the work that he did there and for his pronunciation of Welsh place names.

Guy Opperman: When I had to secure the survival of the Amlwch jobcentre, that was a particular challenge, but my mum is a Llewellyn and grew up in the Tywi valley, so I have some Welsh in me beyond the ability to order two beers in Welsh.
The jobcentre in Stroud does a great job. I will make two points before I get into the nuts and bolts of the submissions from my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud. I am also proud to call my right hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Johnny Mercer) and his wife, Felicity, friends. They have very much been abused by others over the last few days. My hon. Friend is right to cite Ronel Lehmann, an old friend of mine who has done great work with Finito and in creating opportunities.
I have over the last few months met the Confederation of British Industry, the Federation of Small Businesses, all the key business organisations, and, most importantly, UKHospitality. We are trying our hardest to drive forward true change to ensure that we get proper job opportunities created to fill the vacancies that clearly exist in the hospitality industry up and down the country. I was privileged to meet all the leading players in the hospitality industry last week, on 4 July. They came to the Department for Work and Pensions, led by our right hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Glamorgan (Alun Cairns), who chairs a relevant APPG, to see how we could flex the employment offer there.
I look forward to being before my hon. Friend’s APPG on the future of employability, which I am booked in to do in September—that is in the diary. It is unquestionably the case that although the Government have committed £1.3 billion this year to fund a range of opportunities designed to raise skill levels and, subsequently, social mobility, and that a huge amount of money has been invested in the national skills fund, we are also trying to remove barriers that prevent people from progressing—be it through universal credit or the in-work progression that we know is so vital, or through the utilisation of the apprenticeship levy and the skills that are there.
It is difficult for me, in my humble position as a junior Minister, to articulate that there will be widespread change to the apprenticeship levy, but I believe that  we should support the institution that it is, while asking ourselves how we can improve and enhance the offer. My hon. Friend set out a number of particular recommendations, one of which was familiar to me, because I have met Punch Pubs, Greene King, Budweiser, Heineken, Molson—all the big players in hospitality. They all made the simple point that they pay the apprenticeship levy but cannot then transfer that to the individual publicans in their franchised pubs up and down the country—no matter which constituency—so that they can employ an apprentice. That seems to me to be something that the Government could look at to see how they could flex that on an ongoing basis.
My hon. Friend also raised the brilliantly named regional apprenticeship facilitators—the RAF of the modern era—and she made a fair point: every one of us has, in our constituencies up and down the country, a regional schools commissioner who looks after our region and drives forward excellence in education in that way. Why would one not try to facilitate that for apprenticeships?
On the £3,000 incentive, I bow to others who know the particulars in more detail. On the abolishment of the apprenticeship minimum wage and harnessing that to the Treasury-led national minimum wage for their age, that is a matter that I am sure my hon. Friend will take up with the Treasury. What I will do, however, is ask my colleagues at DFE, HMT and the Department for Business and Trade to respond to my hon. Friend’s individual points in writing so that she gets the detailed answers on how she can drive forward ongoing change, particularly in the light of the APPG that she runs with others.
It is fair to say that there is a gap we have to acknowledge between the amount of money raised from the apprenticeship levy and the actual spend. How can this country squeeze that gap to achieve the outcomes we all so willingly seek in our constituencies? I certainly hope that that is one of the major things pressed upon me. The Chair of the Education Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester, feels passionately that there must be enough entry-level apprenticeships on an ongoing basis. Others have also made that point. I have had the opportunity to visit South Essex College with my hon. Friends the Members for Rochford and Southend East (Sir James Duddridge) and for Southend West (Anna Firth) to see the benefits of T-levels, which are transformational, and other countries are copying them. There is no doubt that we should be doing more in that space and have great opportunity to do so.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud that our over-50s offer has to get better. She will know that we have 37 over-50s champions in each region of the country, pioneering and driving forward real change in the attitude of employers and co-workers to older workers—some of us have inexplicably reached the age of 50 and need to ensure a supportive approach to that.
There is no doubt that we need to drive forward the way in which employers look at employment. Why would a particular employer pay somebody to provide a service when the Department for Work and Pensions will provide training for free through a skills bootcamp, a sector-based work academy, returneeships and all manner of other things? We exist up and down the country in over 700 locations, in every constituency.   I was honoured to go to the Canvey Island jobcentre recently with the Whip on duty, my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Rebecca Harris), and those who work there do a fantastic job of training people up. It is a free service to local employers, and it can be from one week up to 12 weeks. We want more employers to sign up to taking people in this way, and we would like more employers to sign up to T-levels as well. There is no doubt whatsoever that we need to do more in that space.
The childcare reforms that my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud pioneered—I know she has been a frequent visitor to the Chancellor in the previous nine months—have, without a shadow of doubt, done great work to drive forward change and provide opportunity, so that individuals  can now go to work and have their childcare supported and paid for by the state. That is certainly making a difference in universal credit.
We continue to work closely across Government and with employers and stakeholders to refine the support on offer and more closely align employment and skills. We need to do that because it supports unemployed people who are looking for work. While the present position is very positive in terms of increasing employment, reducing vacancies and a reducing economic inactivity, we all know that there is more to do, and this is a Government who are passionately committed to ensuring that we solve these problems.
Question put and agreed to.
House adjourned.